1 2026:CGHC:15462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 195 of 2021 1 - Smt. Laxmi Patel Wife Of Shri Chetan Kumar Patel Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village Faraswani, P.S. And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Janpad Panchayat Saraipali Through Chief Executive Officer, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Adv. For State/Respondent : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) and direction may be issued to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” -2- 2. The facts in brief are that on 18.09.2012 an advertisement was issued by the Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for total 11 posts of Teacher (Panchayat) in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (for short ‘the Rules of 2012’). The required qualification for said post was Graduation with two years diploma or one year B.Ed. Certificate or four years B.El.Ed. Degree. The petitioner applied for said post and was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on 27.08.2013 and posted at Government Higher Secondary School Birkol, District Mahasamund (C.G.). The petitioner was removed from services vide order dated 23.09.2013 on the ground that on the date of advertisement, the petitioner was not having requisite qualification of B.Ed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Mahasamund and it was dismissed vide order dated 30.12.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPS No.1643 of 2016 which was disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer a revision petition before the authority concerned. The petitioner filed a revision before the State Government according to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal and Revision)Rules, 1995 and same was dismissed vide order dated 11.06.2019. The petitioner has challenged said order by filing this petition. 3. Mr. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, the required qualification for the post of Teacher 3 (Panchayat) was D.Ed./B.Ed. He would further submit that subsequently, an amendment was inserted in the Rules of 2012 and the required qualification for the post of Teacher (Panchayat) became D.Ed./B.El.Ed. He would contend that the petitioner was duly appointed by the respondent authorities and her services were removed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without holding any inquiry. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose submissions. He would submit that the petitioner was lacking requisite qualification for the post of Teacher (Panchayat) and this was the reason, her appointment order was cancelled. He would further submit that according to the Rules of 2012, the prescribed qualification for the post of Teacher (Panchayat) was Graduation with two years diploma or one year B.Ed. Certificate or four years B.El.Ed. Degree. He would contend that as the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification, therefore, the competent authority terminated the services exercising power of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2012. He would submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the Collector, Commissioner and the State Government and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The petitioner has not placed a copy of B.Ed. Certificate along with this petition. 7. The required qualification as per Schedule IV of the Rules of 2012 -4- was Graduation with two years Diploma or one year B.Ed. Certificate or four years B.El.Ed. Degree. The petitioner was wrongly granted appointment by the respondent authorities as she had neither B.Ed nor D.Ed. Certificate. The petitioner failed to her bonafide before the Collector or Commissioner by placing said document. 8. The required qualification as per Schedule IV of the Rules of 2012 reads as under : “(ब) शिक्षक (पंचा यत) हे त न्यनतम अहेत एं : क्षशिक एंवं व्या वंसा यियक यग्यत :- किसी मान्यता प्राप्ता किश्वकिद्यालय/ सीस्थान सी किनम्नलिलखिता यग्यता हो :- () स्नता और प्रारम्भि लि क्षा मा" कि#र्षी%य कि&प्लमा ( चाहो उसी किसी नमा सी जान जाता हो) अथ न्य,नतामा 50 प्राकिता ता अ-  सीथ स्नता ए लि क्षा [* स्नता ( बी० ए&०) *] मा" ए र्षी%य अथ न्य,नतामा 45 प्राकिता ता अ-  सीथ स्नता ए लि क्षा 1[* *] मा" ए र्षी%य स्नता ( बी० ए&०) जा इसी सीबीध मा" सीमाय- सीमाय पर जार किए गए रष्ट्रीय अध्यप लि क्षा परिरर्षीद्9 (मान्यता, मानद्ण्& ताथ कि;यकिधिध) किकिनयमा  अन=सीर प्राप्ता किय होन चाकिहोए। अथ न्य,नतामा 50 प्राकिता ता अ-  सीथ उच्चतार माध्यधिमा ( अथ इसी सीमाक्षा) ए प्रारभिA लि क्षा 1[* *] मा" 4 र्षी%य स्नता ( बी० एल० ए&०)। अथ न्य,नतामा 50 प्राकिता ता अ-  सीथ उच्चतार माध्यधिमा ( य उसी सीमाक्षा) ए 4 र्षी%य बी० ए० ए&०/ बी०एसी०सी०ए&० 1 [* *]1 * अथ न्य,नतामा 50 प्राकिता ता अ-  सीथ स्नता ताथ ए र्षी%य बी० ए&० (कि र्षी लि क्षा)।" 9. Taking into consideration the above-quoted provisions of Rules of 2012 and concurrent findings recorded by the authorities concerned, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha