1 CGHC010065482022 2026:CGHC:36236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1392 of 2022 1 - Tahal Ram Singh S/o Beersai Markam Aged About 45 Years Working As Teacher (Lb), Government Middle School, Mahora, Sankul Center- Koteya, Vikas Khand- Premnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Roopsai Chakravati D/o Shyam Sai Aged About 41 Years Working As Teacher (Lb), Government Middle School, Kasiyaripara, Sankul Center-Koteya, Vikas Khand-Premnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector And District Mission Director, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Samagra Shiksha, Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, Premnagar, Sarguja, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Mukesh Kumar Bhardhwaj S/o Laxmin Prasad Dubey Working As Teacher (Lb), Government Middle School, Kedarpur, Sankul Center-Laxmanpur, Brahmapur, Vikas Khand-Premnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Ravi Bhagat, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 For Respondents/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14/08/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned selection list dated 16/11/21 (Annexure P-3) issued by the respondent qua the petitioner and direct that the petitioners shall be appointed in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call for the record of entire selection process done by the respondent authorities. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, as well as respondent No. 4, are working on the post of Teacher (LB) in different schools. He would contend that an advertisement was issued on 22.1.2021 inviting applications for appointment on deputation to the post of Block Coordinator under respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the petitioners, as well as respondent No. 4, applied for the said post and, subsequently, respondent No. 4 was appointed vide order dated 16.11.2021. He would submit that respondent No. 4 was posted outside the concerned block and was, therefore, not eligible for the said post, whereas the petitioners were posted within the same block. He would contend that the appointment order issued in favour of respondent No. 4 deserves to be quashed. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. They would submit that the advertisement did not prescribe any criterion requiring that the appointee be a Teacher posted within the same block. They would further submit that the petitioners have no legal ground to challenge the appointment order of respondent No. 4. Accordingly, they would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Having considered the facts stated above, at this juncture, the petitioners are permitted to submit a detailed representation before respondent No. 2 within a period of 45 days. In turn, the said authority is directed to consider and decide the representation objectively, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi