1 CGHC010309042018 2026:CGHC:31988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6474 of 2018 1 - Ku. Lata Kumari D/o Shri Lata Ram Aged About 26 Years Village- Prabhatola, Post Podi, Tahsil Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Block Education Officer Bodla District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Agar Das Working As Lecturer (Panchayat) Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Palansari, Block Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : None appears even in two rounds. For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, GA For Respondent No.2 : Mohd. Naqeeb, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.07.2026 -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the appointment order of respondent No.3 dated 07-12-2017 and petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be quashed the letter dated 20-11-2017 (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement dated 24.07.2017 was issued by respondent No.2 to fill up the vacant posts of Lecturer (Panchayat). The last date for submission of the application form was 10.08.2017. The essential qualifications were B.Ed. and Post Graduation in the concerned subject, and the candidates should have acquired the required education qualifications on or before 24.07.2017, as per Clause 2.7 of the advertisement. 3. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) in the Mathematics subject group under the SC category. The petitioner was eligible for said post. He participated in the written examination and thereafter, the result was declared. 4. Meanwhile, respondent No.2 issued a notification whereby it extended the period for submission of mark-sheets of B.Ed. examination till 20.11.2017. 5. As result of the B.Ed. examination was declared by the concerned institutions, but the mark-sheets were not issued, therefore, some 3 of the candidates could not submit their B.Ed. mark-sheets and that was the reason time was extended. After submission of the B.Ed. Certificates by candidates, they raised objections and subsequently, became meritorious to the petitioner and, therefore, the name of the petitioner could not be considered for appointment. 6. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the private respondent and has also challenged the Circular dated 20.11.2017 issued by respondent No.2, whereby the time for submission of the B.Ed. certificate was extended. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would contend that the merit list was published on 04.11.2017. Initially, the name of respondent No.4 was not considered in the merit list as he had submitted his B.Ed. mark-sheet during extended period. After correction of the merit list, respondent No.4 became meritorious than the petitioner and therefore, his name was considered. 8. Respondent No.2 extended the period for submission of the B.Ed. mark-sheet as the result was declared, but the mark-sheets were issued by various institutions. 9. Mr. Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Naqeeb. 10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 11.Having considered the fact that the time for submission of the B.Ed. mark-sheet was extended by respondent No.2 to provide -4- benefit to a large number of candidates, thus, the Circular dated 20.11.2017 appears to be valid. 12.With regard to the appointment of respondent No.4, as he was found to be meritorious than the petitioner, his name was considered. Therefore, prayer sought for by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his name for appointment cannot be granted. 13.Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of appointment of the respondent No.4. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha