1 CGHC010307192026 2026:CGHC:36215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6148 of 2026 1 - Priti Dewangan W/o Pravin Dewangan Aged About 38 Years Pathan Para Ward No. 39 Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Chhattisgarh Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 14/08/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.08.18 10:27:46 +0530 2 “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-2, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the cancelled recruitment process in remaining 29 vacant post and to consider candidature of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Special Educator as per merit with all consequential benefit at the earliest, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued for 50 posts of Special Educator (Primary). Out of the 50 posts advertised, only 21 posts have been filled, while the remaining posts are still lying vacant. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation before the concerned authorities. Earlier, the petitioner had filed WPS No. 2984 of 2026, which was disposed of on 07.04.2026, directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider and take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that, despite the direction issued by this Court to consider the petitioner’s representation, the same has been rejected on the ground that another writ petition, being WPS No. 974 of 2026 has been filed 3 by three non-TET candidates, is pending, in which, an order has been passed directing the respondents not to disturb their postings. It is, therefore, stated that, for the aforesaid reason, the petitioner’s representation cannot be acceded to at this stage and against the total 50 posts advertised, only 21 posts have been filled up, whereas 29 posts are still lying vacant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that, in the order dated 25.05.2026 Annexure P-2, it has been mentioned that the present petitioner secured 71.66 marks. In the remarks column, it is stated that “accepted in DVC but not selected because the cutoff mark is beyond in her applied category.” It is further submitted that, in the relevant column, the marks of the last selected candidate applied in the category, have been mentioned as 73.36. Thus, the petitioner, having secured 71.66 marks, has obtained marks lower than the cutoff mark of 73.36 fixed for the said category. Learned counsel further submits that, in respect of the posts lying vacant, it has been decided with the approval of the Government, to conclude the Special Educator Recruitment, 2025, and to carry forward a total of 38 vacant posts, comprising 29 posts of Special Educator (Primary) and 9 posts of Special Educator (Upper Primary), for the forthcoming recruitment. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 4 5. Upon perusal of the order dated 25.05.2026 Annexure P-2, whereby the petitioner’s representation was considered and decided, this Court finds that the petitioner secured 71.66 marks, whereas the cutoff marks secured by the last selected candidate in the petitioner’s applied category were 73.36 marks. Thus, the petitioner’s marks are below the prescribed cutoff marks, and consequently, she was not selected. 6. It is further evident that with the approval of the Government, the Special Educator Recruitment, 2025 has been decided to be concluded and the remaining 38 vacant posts, comprising 29 posts of Special Educator (Primary) and 9 posts of Special Educator (Upper Primary), have been decided to be carried forward for the forthcoming recruitment. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the decision taken by the respondents on the petitioner’s representation. Since the petitioner has secured marks below the cutoff marks of the last selected candidate in her applied category and the recruitment process has already been decided to be concluded, no case for interference is made out. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Amardeep