1 CGHC010153922018 2026:CGHC:34726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3965 of 2018 1. Laxminarayan Verma S/o Shri Lakhan Verma, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Tildadih, Post Kharora District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Ravishankar Jalkshatri S/o Shri Ramkumar Jalkshatri Aged About 30 Years R/o New Bus Stand Shastri Chowk Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 To kindly quash the impugned appointment order issued by the respondent no.2 on 08.06.2017. (Annexure P/1) 10.3 To kindly direct the respondents to appoint the present petitioners in the post of Assistant grade -III. 10.4 To kindly make any other order that may be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.07 17:16:41 +0530 2 deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that an advertisement was issued on 03.10.2013/13.12.2013 inviting applications for 121 posts of Assistant Grade – III and 6 posts for Data Entry Operator by District Education Officer, Raipur. He would contend that out of total 121 posts, 17 posts were reserved for Other Backward Class(OBC). He would contend that out of 17 posts of OBC, 5 posts were reserved for ‘Female’ candidates, one for ‘Physically Handicap’, one for ‘Ex-serviceman’ and 10 posts for open category. He would submit that the petitioners applied for post of Assistant Grade – III as candidates belonging to OBC category. He would refer the merit list and submit that only Kuldeep Maharana has been selected as candidate of OBC and 9 posts are still lying vacant in OBC category. He would fairly submit that in the merit list particularly OBC category, the positions of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are at serial Nos. 190 and 134 respectively. He would contend that OBC candidates have been selected against the post reserved for open category, but particularly on said category candidates have not been selected. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider name of the petitioners for appointment on the said post. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that in merit list, the positions of the petitioners are at serial Nos. 134 and 190 and there are many OBC candidates meritorious to the petitioners, therefore, petitioners have no right to claim appointment. It is also argued that the recruitment process was completed in the year 2018 and after 8 years, it would be very difficult to consider the names of the 3 petitioners. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is true that there were total 17 posts for OBC and more than 10 candidates belonging to OBC category have been selected in open category, but there is no document to demonstrate that against 10 posts reserved for OBC, candidates were selected and appointed. It is also an admitted fact that there are candidates meritorious to the petitioners in OBC and names of the petitioners appear at Serial Nos. 190 and 134 in the merit list, therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioners are entitled to claim appointment against said post. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioners, whereby they have sought a direction to the respondent authorities to consider their names appear to be misconceived and hereby rejected. 6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant