1 CGHC010373652026 2026:CGHC:43134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7187 of 2026 Dr. Varsha Sahu W/o Kamlesh Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o New Subhash Nagar, Siddharth Chowk Near Gondwana Bhawan, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Principal, Govt. Nayanrao Meghawale Kanya, Mahavidyalaya, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Dr. Kaluram Chauhan S/o Mr. Shyamlal Chauhan R/o 67, Gagsi, Gasawati Shamgarh, District- Mandsaur (M.P.) - 458883 5 - Dr. Biplab Banerjee S/o Shri Bishwambhar Banerjee R/o Tenpur, Paschim Medinipur (West Bengal) – 721201. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.10.06 16:39:31 +0530 2 6 - Dr. Atun Kant Tiwari S/o Mr. Paras Nath Tiwari R/o Village And Post - Patepur, P.S. Karimuddinpur, Ghazipur (U.P.) - 233225 (Address Of R-4, R-5 And R-6 Correctly Mentioned As Per Annexure P-1) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Akash Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06.10.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed against the final merit list dated 11.09.2026, whereby the selection of Guest Lecturer in Geography for Government Narayan Rao Meghawale Girls College, Dhamtari, has been published without giving preference to the petitioner, who is a bona fide resident/domicile of Chhattisgarh. He submits that respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been selected for the post of Guest Lecturer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Clause 5.4 of the Guest Lecturer Policy, 2024, submits that there is a provision for granting preference to candidates who are bona fide residents of Chhattisgarh. In clear violation of the said 3 provision, the select list has been issued by ignoring the candidature of the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the provision prescribed under Clause 5.4 would come into play only when the candidates have the same and equal marks in the merit list. Referring to Clauses 5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4, he submits that a specific procedure has been prescribed for assessing the merit of the candidates and specific marks have been provided for the same. On the basis of the prescribed criteria, the merit of the candidates was assessed, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 4, as the petitioner did not possess the qualification of NET/SET or the requisite experience, whereas the candidates placed above the petitioner possessed the qualification of NET/SET, and two of them also had the requisite experience as prescribed under the Policy, 2024. Hence, once the petitioner did not have marks equivalent to those of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of preference prescribed under Clause 5.4 of the Policy. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4 5. From a perusal of the pleadings as well as the provisions of the Guest Lecturer Policy, 2024, it appears that although there is a provision for giving preference to candidates who are domiciles of Chhattisgarh, the same is not the sole criterion for selection. The Policy prescribes specific criteria and marks for assessing the merit of the candidates. From a perusal of the select list and the marks awarded to the candidates, it appears that the petitioner has been placed at Serial No. 4 after assessment of merit on the basis of the prescribed criteria under the Policy. Hence, once the petitioner does not have marks equal to those of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the petitioner cannot claim a right of preference under Clause 5.4 of the Policy. 6. Accordingly, no illegality is found in the select list prepared by the respondents. The petitioner cannot claim selection as a matter of right by invoking Clause 5.4 of the Policy, 2024. 7. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Shoaib