1 / 5 CGHC010254132026 2026:CGHC:35568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5080 of 2026 Shivanand Sahasi S/o Shri D S Sahasi Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 388, Shiv Nagar, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Council of Educational Research and Training Through In-Charge Director, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Government College of Teacher Education, Shiv Nagar, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhupat Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Bali Ram Aged About 45 Years Posted As Head Master (Middle School), Government School, Pathri Para, Godma, Pharasgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 5 - Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar S/o Shri Amar Singh Bhaskar Aged About 42 Years Posted As Head Master (Middle School), Government School, Padoki, Baderajpur, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. K.G. Yadav, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 12/08/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.14 18:04:57 +0530 2 / 5 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has called in question the selection of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for admission to the B.Ed. (Departmental) Course for the academic session 2026–2028, as also the final selection list dated 19.06.2026, whereby the petitioner has not been selected, whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been selected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed/promoted to the post of Headmaster on the same date, i.e. 28.01.2022, and, therefore, their seniority for the purpose in question is the same. It is submitted that the petitioner was born on 12.06.1974, whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were born on 05.06.1980 and 13.04.1983, respectively. Thus, the petitioner is older than both respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the admission policy/advertisement dated 25.03.2026, particularly clause 2.3 thereof, would submit that where the seniority of candidates is the same, preference is required to be given on the basis of the earlier date of birth, i.e. to the older candidate. According to learned counsel, despite the petitioner being senior in age and despite the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 having the same date from which their seniority is reckoned, the petitioner has not been selected, whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been included in the final selection list. It is, therefore, contended that the selection is contrary to the express terms of the policy/advertisement. It is further submitted that the petitioner had raised an objection/representation before the competent authority pointing out the aforesaid discrepancy, but the same was not duly considered and, thereafter, the impugned final selection list 3 / 5 dated 19.06.2026 came to be issued. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner has no vested right to claim admission merely on the basis of his age. Referring to the relevant gradation/seniority list, it is submitted that the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 614, whereas, for the purpose of selection for admission, candidates falling within the relevant zone, up to Serial No. 500, were considered. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner did not fall within the zone of consideration and, consequently, the question of granting him preference over respondent Nos. 4 and 5 does not arise. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The principal contention of the petitioner is founded upon clause 2.3 of the admission policy/advertisement dated 25.03.2026. The said provision, as relied upon by the petitioner, contemplates preference on the basis of seniority and, where the seniority of the candidates is the same, preference would be given on the basis of the earlier date of birth/age. 6. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the terms and conditions contained in the governing policy/advertisement are required to be adhered to by the authorities while undertaking the selection process. However, the petitioner's claim cannot be examined in isolation from the other conditions governing the selection process, including the gradation/seniority position of the candidates and the number of candidates falling within the zone of consideration. 4 / 5 7. In the present case, the material placed before this Court indicates that the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 614 in the relevant gradation list. The respondents have specifically stated that, for the purpose of the selection in question, candidates up to Serial No. 500 were considered. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from the material placed on record that, notwithstanding his position at Serial No. 614, he was otherwise entitled to be included within the zone of consideration or that the respondents had acted contrary to any provision of the governing policy while fixing the said zone. 8. The provision relating to preference on the basis of age, as contained in clause 2.3, cannot be construed to mean that a candidate placed beyond the prescribed zone of consideration would acquire a right of admission merely because he is older in age than a candidate who has been considered and selected. The preference contemplated by the said provision operates amongst candidates who are otherwise similarly situated and eligible for consideration under the prescribed selection criteria. 9. Consequently, even assuming that the petitioner is older than respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that the date from which their seniority is reckoned is the same, such circumstance by itself would not confer upon the petitioner an indefeasible right to admission when his position in the gradation list is admittedly at Serial No. 614 and the candidates falling within the relevant zone up to Serial No. 500 alone were considered. 10. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has not demonstrated any 5 / 5 arbitrariness or discrimination in the preparation of the gradation list itself. No material has been placed before this Court to establish that the petitioner has been wrongly assigned Serial No. 614 or that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been wrongly placed within the zone of consideration. In the absence of such a challenge, the petitioner's claim based solely upon the difference in age cannot be accepted. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the selection of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be said to be contrary to clause 2.3 of the policy/advertisement dated 25.03.2026. The petitioner, being placed at Serial No. 614 in the relevant gradation list, cannot claim preference over the candidates who were within the zone of consideration. Consequently, no case is made out for interference with the final selection list dated 19.06.2026 or the selection of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 12. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu