1 CGHC010263872026 2026:CGHC:29876 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5355 of 2026 Nirmal Verma S/o Ayodhya Prasad Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 01, Village Charouda, Post And Police Station Dharsiwa District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2.Registrar, Dau Shri Vasudev Chandrakar Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya, Anjora, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Gajendra Prakash Sahu on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses a B.Tech. degree in Dairy Technology and had worked as a Part Time Teacher at Dairy Polytechnic College, Takhatpur, from 02.05.2022 to 15.06.2024. He submits that although the advertisement dated 10.06.2026 prescribes B.Tech. as the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Dairy Polytechnic), it neither provides JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.17 11:40:08 +0530 2 any preference or weightage to candidates having prior teaching experience nor excludes candidates possessing higher qualifications e.g. M.Tech. from competing for the said post. He, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to grant due weightage to the petitioner's teaching experience and to consider only eligible Bachelor's degree holders for the post in question. 2. Learned State counsel while opposing the writ petition submits that the recruitment process is being conducted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 10.06.2026 and the applicable extant recruitment rules. He submits that the eligibility criteria and method of selection have been uniformly prescribed for all candidates and the Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ought not to interfere with the policy decision of the recruiting authority. He further submits that in the absence of any statutory provision or rule providing for grant of preference or weightage to teaching experience, the petitioner cannot claim such benefit as a matter of right. It is also submitted that candidates possessing higher qualifications are not ineligible from applying for a post prescribing a Bachelor's degree as the minimum essential qualification unless specifically prohibited under the applicable rules or the advertisement. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to point out any statutory provision or 3 recruitment rule mandating grant of preference or weightage to his experience as a Part Time Teacher or prohibiting candidates possessing higher qualifications from applying for a post where the prescribed qualification is a Bachelor's degree. 5. On the contrary, the recruitment scheme itself provides for award of 2.0 marks per year towards professional experience in the pay scale of Assistant Professor/equivalent. In the case at hand, the petitioner failed to produce any document to establish his case that he had professional experience in the pay scale of Assistant Professor/equivalent whereas he produced the experience certificate from which it is evident that he has worked as Part Time teacher on the honorarium of Rs.1000/- per day. Therefore, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of the aforesaid criterion. 6. The eligibility criteria and method of selection are matters within the domain of the recruiting authority and, in the absence of any arbitrariness or violation of any statutory provision, no interference is called for in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti