1 CGHC010232132026 2026:CGHC:34704-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 672 of 2026 1 - Kalpana Dahariya D/o Rupachand Dahariya Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No.33, HN.398, Irrigarion Colony Near Arya Vidya Mandir Rampur Korba C.G. 2 - Purvee Soni D/o Ramesh Kumar Soni Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 39, Krishna Nagar Baniya Para, Juna Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Smt, Indu Chandra W/o Shri Satyendra Chandra Aged About 44 Years R/o Block No. 501, Near Tv Tower Atal Awas, Tehsil Raigarh District Raigarh C.G. 4 - Chandreshwar Manhare S/o K.R.Manhare Aged About 37 Years R/o C/o Manish Banjare Infront Of Bajrang Bhawan Near Balmukund School Talapaara Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. ... Appellants Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its The Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa, Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Director Education, Education Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. 4 - District Education Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.10 16:32:15 +0530 2 07.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 This writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellants who were the writ petitioners in different writ petitions against the order dated 16.04.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.6307 of 2021 (Kalpana Dahariya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), WPS No.6822 of 2021 (Smt. Indu Chandra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), WPS No.6335 of 2021 (Poorvi Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), WPS No.6332 of 2021 (Jeevan Prasad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and WPS No.6309 of 2021 (Chandreshwar Manhare Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) whereby all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. 2 Learned counsel for the writ appellants would submit that the writ appellants are possessing Graduation Degree from the recognized University having one subject of Business Economics/Applied Economics. All the writ appellants were aspirants to be a Teacher and have obtained their B.Ed qualification and also qualified for Chhattisgarh Teachers Eligibility Test (in short, TET). The Department of School Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh framed The Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (in short, The Rules, 2019) and as per the Rules, 2019 the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher, Teacher and Lecturers were prescribed. For the post of Teacher, the minimum qualification was one of the subject in Bachelor Degree i.e. History, Geography, Economics or Political Science along with B.Ed/D.Ed and TET certificate. The School 3 Education Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh advertised total 152 posts of Teachers(Social Science) English Medium, E-Cadre and as per the advertisement the minimum educational qualification for the post of Teacher was prescribed for the same i.e. one of the subject in Bachelor Degree i.e. History, Geography, Economics or Political Science along with B.Ed/D.Ed and TET certificate. The writ appellants are possessing the requisite qualification and duly participated in recruitment process and after having successfully passed the tests and after verification of their documents and testimonials, the appointment orders of petitioners were issued on 24.08.2021 on the post of Teachers (Arts) English Medium, E-Cadre. The writ appellants joined their respective places of posting, however, after having their joining, they received show cause notice dated 07.10.2021 wherein they were informed that they are not eligible to be appointed as Teacher (Arts) English Medium as they are not possessing Graduation Degree in Arts subject. Show cause notices were replied by the writ appellants highlighting the fact that they possessed the requisite educational qualification as per Rules, 2019 and having their graduate degree with one of the subject of Economics. The respondent authorities without considering the requisite qualification prescribed under the Rules, 2019, issued the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 by which the appointment order of the writ appellants have been cancelled. 3 The writ appellants have challenged the said order dated 25.10.2021 in the writ petition by the respective writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge has passed the order impugned and dismissed the writ petitions holding that the candidates must have studied any one of the subjects 4 namely History, Geography, Economics or Political Science at Bachelor level along with B.Ed/D.Ed and TET certificate and the writ appellants have completed their graduation in B.Com (Commerce Stream). Though they have studied one of the subject of applied Economics, but the same does not fulfill the requirement of having studied the core subject prescribed under the Rules, 2019 and the post for which advertisement was issued was Teacher (Arts) English Medium. He would further submit that from the educational qualification of the writ appellants it is quite vivid that they have studied one of the subject of applied Economics in their graduation and as per the Rules, 2019, there is no specific subject mentioned in graduation for which the Teachers are to be appointed for that particular posts. By referring Annexure-1 of Rules, 2019 he would submit that the social science subject in bachelor degree includes the subject group of History, Geography, Economics or Political Science and the writ appellants have studied Business Economics as one of the subject in their graduation. Therefore, they fulfill the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Teacher under the subject advertisement. Rules, 2019 have not been considered in its true aspect by the Single Judge as under the Rules, 2019 there is only qualification of Graduation for appointment on the post of Teacher. Once the writ appellants were appointed after due verification of their documents, their appointment cannot be cancelled subsequently by saying that they have not possessed the requisite qualification under the Rules, 2019 or under the advertisement. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Single Judge may be set aside and that the order of 5 cancellation of the appointment of the writ petitioners may also be quashed and they may be directed to reinstate on their respective posts. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellants and have submitted that the advertisement for appointment on the post of Arts Teacher (English) have been issued under the Rules, 2019. Though the petitioners have participated in the selection process and appointed vide order dated 07.09.2021 and they joined their duties, however on subsequent verification of documents it was found that they were ineligible as they did not possess the requite qualification of graduation in the particular subject required under the advertisement as well as the Rules, 2019 and therefore show cause notices were issued to them and after calling of the reply their appointment have been cancelled. He would further submit that the advertisement was issued for 152 posts of Arts Teacher (English Medium) and the minimum qualification for the said post of Teacher was required i.e. Graduation and B.Ed/D.Ed with TET certificate. The subjects of bachelor degree would be the social science and one of the subject should be History, Geography, Economics or Political Science which was the compulsory subjects. Column -2 of the requisite qualification in subject groups against the social science should be History, Geography, Economics or Political Science. The petitioners applied for the post of Teacher, English Medium (Arts), however, they had bachelor degree of Commerce. The writ appellants are interpreting the subject group of commerce within the purview of subject group of Economics as stated in column-3. The 6 subject Economics is in relation to applied and business Economics. The said subjects of Applied or Business Economics were studied for the only first 2 years of B.Com course, however, when the Economics in relation to B.A. course is considered, the focus is on both qualitative and quantitative aspects of Economics. B.A. Economics focuses on the areas such as inflation, resources management supply and demand behaviour of the product etc. includes micro economics, macro economics, statistic econometric, history of economics and public economics etc. Therefore, the subject economics as read in B.Com. stream and BA Economics cannot analogously be used for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher. The curriculum of B.A. Course also demonstrate that the student has to first appear and pass BA Part-I and then he should appear in BA Part-II & III examination in the same subject. Under the subject advertisement, the candidate ought to have one subject as History, Geography, Economics or Political Science compulsorily and the said criteria when read along with the curriculum of B.A. Graduation course, it is clear that the condition of one of the subjects History, Geography, Economics or Political Science will be compulsory of three core subjects in BA which means that a candidate holding B.A. degree has to have one of the said subjects as a core subject. The combination of group of subjects cannot be considered to be a core subject in the graduation course. From perusal of mark sheets annexed with the writ petition by the writ petitioners it would clear that except for first 2 years of their degree course, the writ petitioners do not have the subject of Economics in their final year 7 course which itself demonstrate that the graduation of the writ petitioners is in Commerce wherein the Economics only one of the subject for initial two years of their studies. Therefore, the act of respondents canceling the appointment of the writ petitioners holding that they did not possess the requisite qualification of graduation in particular subject, cannot be said to be arbitrary. The learned Single Judge has also considered the Rules, 2019 in its true spirit and held that the writ petitioners have completed B.Com. in Commerce stream, but the subjects of applied Economics does not fulfill the requirement of having studied the core subject in their graduation as required under Rules, 2019. Therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge is based on proper appreciation of Rules, 2019 and the material produced by the writ petitioners in their writ petitions which does not require any interference and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ appeal as well as writ petitions and gone ground their respective pleadings. 6 The main question which arises for consideration in the present writ appeal is as to whether the appellants/writ petitioners possessed the requisite educational qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Teacher (Arts/Social Science) under the advertisement issued pursuant Rules, 2019. There is no dispute that the appellants had participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement and having been successful therein, were initially appointed as Teacher (Arts). It is also not in dispute that upon subsequent scrutiny of their educational qualification and the documents furnished by them, the 8 respondents found them to be ineligible for the post and after issuing a show-cause notice to them and considering their reply, cancelled their appointments. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2019 and qualification prescribed in the subject advertisement, has declined to interfere with the said decision on the ground that the writ appellants did not possess the requisite subject qualification at graduation level. 7 The minimum qualification prescribed in Rules for appointment to the post of Teacher is required to be noticed, which is as under: “(ii) Teacher (a) Graduation and 2 Year Diploma in Elementary Education (by what ever name known) OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 Year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) OR Graduation with at least 45% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard. OR Higher Secondary or its equivalent with at least 50% marks and 4 years B.A./B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc. Ed. OR Graduation with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed. (Special Education) And (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose. The subjects of the bachelor’s degree above will be as follows : Sl.No. Subject Subject Group 1 English English literature has been a subject at graduation level. 2 Hindi Hindi literature has been a subject at graduation level. 3 Social Science One of the subject, History, Geography, Economics or Political Science will be compulsory. xxx xxx xxx 9 8 In addition to the requisite professional qualification, the Rules specifically prescribed the subjects of the Bachelor's Degree and in the Social Science group stipulated that one of the subjects namely History, Geography, Economics or Political Science was compulsory. Thus, the requirement was not merely possession of any Bachelor's Degree, but possession of the Bachelor's Degree with the prescribed subject qualification. 9 The writ appellants admittedly hold B.Com. Degree. Their contention, however, is essentially founded upon the fact that Economics was one of the subjects studied by them during the B.Com. course and therefore, they should be treated as having studied Economics for the purpose of satisfying the requirement prescribed for the post of Teacher (Arts/Social Science). The submission, in our considered view, cannot be accepted merely on the basis that the nomenclature "Economics" finds place in the subjects studied by the writ appellants. What is required to be examined is not merely whether the word "Economics" appears in the academic record of the candidate, but whether the candidate possesses the prescribed subject qualification in the manner contemplated by the advertisement and the governing rules. The respondent authorities have specifically pointed out that Economics in the B.Com. course is in the nature of Applied/Business Economics and was studied by the writ appellants only during the initial years of the course, whereas Economics in the B.A. stream is offered as a core subject and is pursued throughout the relevant course of study. The curriculum placed on record by the respondents demonstrates that in 10 the B.A. course a candidate is required to select core subjects from specified groups, one of which includes Economics. 10 The distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents cannot, therefore, be said to be wholly without basis. The requirement of having one of the specified subjects as a compulsory/core subject has to be understood in the context of the subject group prescribed for the post. The material placed before us indicates that the B.Com. course does not contain the same system of selection of three core subjects as contemplated in B.A. course. The mere fact that Economics is taught as an allied or business-related subject in B.Com. would not, by itself, establish that the appellants possesses graduation qualification with Economics as the prescribed core subject. 11 We are conscious of the submissions that the writ appellants were permitted to participate in the selection process were declared successful and thereafter appointed. However, participation in the selection process or even issuance of an appointment order cannot confer eligibility upon a candidate who, on proper scrutiny of their qualification, are found not to satisfy the mandatory eligibility condition prescribed by the rules and the advertisement. Eligibility is required to be determined with reference to the conditions governing recruitment. 12 The qualification prescribing the relevant subjects was contained in the advertisement itself. The subsequent action of the respondents was only an exercise of scrutiny of the qualification claimed by the appellants against the eligibility condition already prescribed. The case is not one where the respondents introduced a new qualification after completion of the selection process; rather, the issue arose because, 11 upon verification of the documents, the writ appellant's qualifications were found not to conform to the requirement already stipulated. 13 It is equally important to bear in mind that the prescription of the educational qualifications for a particular post is essentially a matter falling within the domain of the employer/recruiting authority. The authority is entitled to determine the academic qualification and subject specialization which, in its assessment, is necessary for a candidate to efficiently discharge the duties attached to the post. The Court, exercising judicial review, does not ordinarily sit in appeal over such academic or recruitment policy decisions or undertake an independent exercise of equivalence between two different qualifications, unless the prescription or its application is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the governing statutory provisions. 14 In the present case, the writ appellants have not been able to demonstrate that the requirement of having one of the specified subjects History, Geography, Economics or Political Science as the compulsory/core subject is either contrary to the Recruitment Rules or otherwise arbitrary. On the contrary, the requirement appears to have been consciously incorporated with reference to the nature of the post for which recruitment was being undertaken. The respondents have also explained that the posts in question was that of Teacher in the Arts/Social Science stream and that the prescribed subject qualification was intended to ensure the requisite academic background in the concerned subject. 15 We are, therefore, unable to accept the submissions that merely because the writ appellants had studied Economics as one of the 12 subjects during their B.Com. Courses, they automatically acquired the qualification prescribed for a candidate who had studied Economics as a core subject in the manner contemplated by the advertisement. Such an interpretation would amount to rewriting the eligibility conditions and treating two different academic courses as equivalent without there being any determination of such equivalence by the competent authority. 16 On an overall consideration of the matter, therefore, we find that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the distinction between possession of a B.Com. degree in which Economics was studied as an allied/business subject and possession of the prescribed graduation qualification with one of the specified subjects as a compulsory/core subject. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the writ appellants do not satisfy the educational qualification prescribed for the post is based upon the applicable eligibility condition and the material available on record. No perversity or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated warranting interference in the intra-court appellate jurisdiction. 17 Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder