1 CGHC010011022022 2026:CGHC:28514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 349 of 2022 1 - Likhendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Lal Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kolihamar, Thekeardih Road, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School Education Indrawati Bhawan, Block-C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Divisional Joint Director, Department Of School Education, Sarguja Division Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board NIRMALA RAO 2 09.07.2026 1) At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra and this petition is squarely covered with the judgment passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, the leading case being WPS No. 3781 of 2021 (R.N. Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.), which was decided on 16.06.2023. 2) In light of the submission made herein-above, this Court is of the opinion that this petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPS No. 3781 of 2021 (R.N. Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.), decided on 16.06.2023. 3) Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of R.N. Soni (supra), wherein it was held that the State by taking a policy decision has made a reasonable classification between the CTET and CGTET and relaxed the passing marks upto 10% in CGTET whereas, 5% in CTET for candidates belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently-abled categories, which cannot be termed as discriminatory. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities. 4) Accordingly, this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi