1 / 3 CGHC010328622026 2026:CGHC:37785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6306 of 2026 1. Komal Prasad Son Of Shri Tekram Sahu, Aged About 27 Years Residence Of Village And Post Salheghori, Post Salheghori, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2. Kunal Sahu Son Of Shri Shiv Kumar Sahu, Aged About 27 Years Residence Of Jorapara, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) 3. Chandan Kumar Sahu Son Of Deepak Sahu, Aged About 28 Years Residence Of Gokul Nagar, Rawabhata, Post Beergaon, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Shraddha Dewangan D/o Late Durga Prasad Dewangan, Aged About 26 Years Residence Of House No. 188/2, Deorbeeja, Bemetara, District Bemetara, (C.G.) 5. Virendra Kumar Rathore Son Of Dwarika Prasad Rathore, Aged About 28 Years Residence Of House No. 170, Sadak Para, Ratan Mahaka, Kharsia, District Raigarh, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Chhattisgarh Staff Selection Board, Earlier Name Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Its Secretary, North Block Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipurm (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. C.J.K. Rao , Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl A.G. along with Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.08.25 10:34:57 +0530 2 / 3 24/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners possesses the qualification of B.Sc. in Information Technology along with Mathematics and Physics. He submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.07.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Directorate of Public Instructions (DPI), the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (Mathematics). 2. Referring to page 10 of the aforesaid advertisement, learned counsel submits that for appointment to the post of Teacher (Mathematics), a candidate is required to possess a degree in Mathematics along with two prescribed subjects, one of which is Computer Science. He submits that although the petitioners possesses the qualification in Information Technology, the subject of Information Technology has neither been included with Computer Science nor specifically mentioned as an additional subject in the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Mathematics). Learned counsel further refers to Annexure P-3, dated 15.02.2021 relating to the recruitment process undertaken in the year 2021, and submits that on the same issue, the Department had taken a decision that Computer Science includes Information Technology. He submits that the petitioners have accordingly submitted a representation before the DPI on 31.07.2026, requesting that Information Technology be treated as a subject included within Computer Science for the purpose of the present recruitment process. However, the said representation is still pending consideration. It is submitted that although the petitioners have already submitted their application form, unless Information Technology is treated as a subject of Computer Science, the petitioners may be deprived of participating in the recruitment process. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that 3 / 3 since the petitioners have already applied for the post and the representation dated 31.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) is pending consideration, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of 10 days. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the Directorate of Public Instructions (DPI) is directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioners dated 31.07.2026 (Annexure P-5), keeping in view the decision taken by the DPI on 15.02.2025, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, and the competent authority shall take a decision on the representation independently, in accordance with the applicable rules. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General is requested to communicate a copy of this order to the concerned Department by tomorrow. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti