1 2026:CGHC:14638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 952 of 2021  Ekta Chandrakar D/o Shri Shiv Narayan Chandrakar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Alekhuta, Tahsil Khurud, Post Office District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director Department Of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, C- Block, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Joint Director Department Of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, C- Block, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A. For Respondent No. 4/ CG-VYAPAM : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board (27.3.2026) 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged rejection order issued by the Joint Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, whereby her candidature for appointment to the posts of Lecturer has been rejected on the singular ground that she obtained two degrees simultaneously in the same academic year, typically a combination of B.Ed. in regular mode and a postgraduate degree (M.Sc.) in open or distance mode. Despite the petitioner having successfully cleared the written examination and having been called for document verification, her name were excluded from the provisional selection lists or was shown as ineligible in the list of disqualified candidates. The rejection order relies on the reasoning that “two degrees cannot be pursued in one academic session,” even though the University Grants Commission, through its notification dated 28.12.2012 and the 2022 Guidelines titled “Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously,” expressly permits students to pursue one regular degree along with one additional degree through open/distance mode, whether from the same or a different university. The petitioner assert that she acquired the qualifications strictly in accordance with UGC norms and other regulatory guidelines, and further point out that similarly situated candidates in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department have been granted 3 appointments despite holding simultaneous dual degrees, making the rejection of their candidature discriminatory and arbitrary. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashment of the impugned order and a direction to consider her candidature for appointment in accordance with law. 2. The brief facts of the case, are that the respondent–School Education Department issued an advertisement dated 09.03.2019 inviting applications for recruitment to various teaching posts, including 270 posts of Lecturer (Mathematics) under the E-Cadre and 400 posts of Lecturer (Mathematics) under the T-Cadre. As per the said advertisement, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) was a Post- Graduation degree in Mathematics along with a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree. The petitioner, possessing all requisite qualifications, duly submitted his application for the post of Lecturer (Mathematics) under both E-Cadre and T-Cadre. Upon scrutiny of his application, the respondents issued an admit card permitting the petitioner to appear in the written examination. The petitioner appeared in the examination and successfully qualified, demonstrating his merit and eligibility. Upon qualifying the written examination, the petitioner was called for document verification. The Deputy Director, Public Instruction Division, Raipur issued a letter dated 05.05.2022 directing the petitioner to appear for verification of documents on 22.01.2022 along with all original educational testimonials. During the document verification held on 4 19.05.2022, the verification committee orally informed the petitioner that his candidature was liable to be rejected on the ground that his mark-sheets for B.Ed. and M.Sc. (Mathematics) appeared to relate to the same academic year. Subsequently, the respondents issued the impugned rejection order dated 22.07.2022, formally rejecting the petitioner's candidature on the same ground. The petitioner has duly completed his Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) through regular mode from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, passing the First Year in May-June, 2016 and the Second/Final Year on 15.7.2017. In addition to the above, the petitioner pursued M.Sc. (Mathematics) through distance mode from Pt. Sundarlal Sharma University, Bilaspur, by enrolling in 2018. He successfully completed the M.Sc. Previous Year on 3.10.2016, and the result of the Final Year was declared on 25.8.2018. The rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the academic norms laid down by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC has issued comprehensive guidelines titled “Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously” in April 2022, expressly permitting students to pursue two academic programmes concurrently, one in regular mode and another in Open and Distance Learning (ODL)/Online mode, or even two programmes in ODL/Online mode. As per the UGC guidelines, a student enrolled in a regular course is explicitly permitted to pursue another degree simultaneously through distance, private, online, 5 or part-time mode. Hence, the petitioner’s pursuit of a regular B.Ed. course alongside an M.Sc. degree in distance mode is permissible under the law, and therefore, rejection of his candidature on the ground of simultaneous degrees is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable. Similar issues have been adjudicated by the High Court of Madras, wherein a candidate selected for the post of Deputy Collector was denied appointment because he obtained two degrees simultaneously, one in regular mode and the other through open university. The High Court, vide order dated 13.01.2015 in W.P. No. 18144/2014, held such rejection to be unsustainable and directed consideration of the candidate’s appointment. Neither the Recruitment Rules nor the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 stipulate any condition prohibiting candidates from possessing qualifications obtained simultaneously under regular and distance modes. It is a settled principle of law that the appointing authority is bound by the terms of the advertisement, and no additional disqualification can be introduced at a later stage, particularly at the time of document verification. Thus, rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on a non-existent ground is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents cannot modify or alter the eligibility criteria after commencement of the selection process, as doing so amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun, which is impermissible in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated this position in Tej Prakash 6 Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., holding that alteration of selection norms mid-process is unconstitutional. Hence, the petitioner, having fulfilled all eligibility criteria and having successfully cleared the written examination, is illegally deprived of consideration for appointment solely due to an unjustified and legally unsustainable reason, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenged rejection order issued by the Joint Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, whereby her candidatures for appointment to the posts of Lecturer has been rejected on the singular ground that she obtained two degrees simultaneously in the same academic year. Typically, this involves a combination of a B.Ed. degree in regular mode and a postgraduate degree (M.Sc.) in open or distance mode. Despite the petitioner having successfully cleared the written examination and having been called for document verification, her name was excluded from the provisional selection list or was shown as ineligible in the list of disqualified candidates. The rejection order relies on the reasoning that “two degrees cannot be pursued in one academic session,” even though the University Grants Commission, through its notification dated 28.12.2012 and the 2022 “Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously,” expressly permits students to pursue one regular degree along with one additional degree through open/distance mode, whether from the 7 same or a different university. The petitioner submits that she acquired their qualifications strictly in accordance with UGC norms and other regulatory guidelines. Further, similarly situated candidates in other departments, such as the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, have been granted appointments despite holding simultaneous dual degrees. The rejection of petitioner’s candidature in these circumstances is discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of fairness and equality. During document verification, the selection committees orally informed the petitioner that her candidatures were liable to be rejected on the erroneous premise that their postgraduate and B.Ed. mark-sheets related to the same academic year. In fact, the petitioner completed B.Ed. courses in regular mode and postgraduate degree in distance mode, with the dates of completion clearly demonstrating that there was no impermissible overlap. Therefore, the rejection order stems from a factual misunderstanding and iis without any legal basis. It is submitted that the University Grants Commission, in its “Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously” dated April 2022, expressly permits a student to pursue one programme in regular mode and another in distance/online mode concurrently, subject to recognition of the institutions by UGC or the relevant statutory authority. Petitioner having pursued such courses falls squarely within the ambit of these guidelines. Consequently, the rejection of candidature solely on the ground of simultaneous 8 academic enrolment is contrary to recognized academic norms and the applicable UGC guidelines. The disqualification of the petitioner constitutes an illegal, arbitrary, and colorable exercise of power. The petitioner was otherwise fully eligible and had fulfilled all the requisite qualifications for the post(s) applied for. The respondents’ actions, based on a misconceived notion of overlapping courses, amount to highhandedness, abuse of discretion, and denial of legitimate opportunity. The relevant recruitment advertisements, such as the advertisement dated 09.03.2019, explicitly provide that a candidate must fulfill all relevant qualifications on or before the date of declaration of result. The petitioner had completed all necessary qualifications by the relevant dates and thus satisfy the eligibility criteria. Rejection of candidature at the stage of document verification on non-existent grounds constitutes a violation of the advertisement terms and amounts to arbitrary action. The petitioner invokes the well-recognized doctrine of legitimate expectation. By pursuing a B.Ed. course in regular mode alongside a postgraduate degree in distance mode, in accordance with academic norms and guidelines, the petitioner had a reasonable expectation that the completion of these degrees would be recognized for eligibility purposes. Denial of candidature despite fulfillment of all qualifications constitutes a deprivation of a benefit that the petitioner was legitimately entitled to enjoy. 4. It is further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the 9 State, as a model employer, must act fairly, transparently, and reasonably. Arbitrary disqualification violates principles of natural justice and deprives the petitioner of rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rejection of candidature for possession of simultaneous degrees obtained in regular and distance mode is manifestly discriminatory, arbitrary, and contrary to law. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned rejection order passed by the Directorate of Public Instruction and direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in accordance with law and applicable UGC guidelines. 5. Learned counsel for the respective respondents jointly submitted that it is apparent from the record that petitioner has pursued two different degree programmes during the same academic year. This includes, inter alia, combinations such as B.Ed. and Master’s degree examinations cleared within the same academic year. Pursuit of two degrees in the same academic year falls squarely within the prohibitions set out in the applicable statutory and regulatory framework. It is submitted that the University Grants Commission, by public notice dated 15/01/2016, had issued clarifications regarding simultaneous pursuit of two degrees. However, these clarifications do not override the statutory provisions under the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, or the Ordinances framed thereunder, which specifically regulate 10 eligibility for appearing in examinations and obtaining degrees. Statutory Framework under Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973 Ordinance 6 (Examination – General), para 16, of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973 clearly provides that no candidate shall appear in more than one degree examination or in more than one subject for the Master’s degree (Previous or Final) in the same academic year. The Commissioner, Higher Education, Chhattisgarh, has issued clarifications in accordance with this statutory provision to ensure that the rules are uniformly applied. It is submitted that the relevant recruitment advertisements and the Chhattisgarh Official Gazette notifications (e.g., dated 05/03/2019) explicitly provide that candidates must not possess two degrees obtained simultaneously in the same academic year for appointment to teaching positions. Any possession of degrees in the same academic year violates the eligibility criteria and renders the candidates ineligible for appointment. 6. It is further submitted that reliance upon UGC notifications concerning “dual degree programmes” is misplaced in these cases. The petitioner pursued separate courses independently from recognized Indian universities. She did not pursue integrated or joint dual degree programmes as defined by UGC; therefore, such notifications have no bearing on the present matter. The document verification processes in all cases were conducted in accordance with law and the prescribed rules. Once the verification was completed and petitioner was declared ineligible 11 for appointment, the determinations were final. It is submitted that reliance on prior judgments concerning similar matters is misplaced, as those decisions did not consider the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, or Ordinance 6 (Examination – General), nor the UGC public notice of 15/01/2016. The impugned orders in these matters have been passed after proper application of law, and no new or additional grounds are being raised by the State. It is further submitted that the impugned order rejecting candidature is legally valid, just, and proper. The learned State counsel and learned counsel for other respondents, therefore pray that the petitions be dismissed at the threshold. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment of Lecturer (English / Physics / Chemistry / Biology / Commerce/Mathematics) reads as under: “(
र) 
 य  

लय / न 
 य  
ननल
षय  
 ए
षय  न  !र / # ए $.एड. .&.
षय
षय 'ह (1) (2) (3) 1 )*+ )*+ 2 ,-
. ,-
./इल012
न0/एलइड 12 ,-
. / य'30लयर ,-
. 3 रयन रयन / $य  14 4 +
5न न6
78 / 78 / लइफइ / +:
./ )न;7. (+न<=0) / '>+:
. (इ $य ल2+) / +: 
?. ($य =0न2ल+) / आ
 +
5न (ल; लर $य ल2+) AदA CयD. (ल=
फE+य ल2+) F न   र  78 )F न6
78
षय रह ह । 5 HIय एउ= 
ह HIय / = एउK=D?/फइनLयल एउ= ;Mय
षय  NA  रह ह । 6 ?H ?H / एलईड ?H 9. The petitioner, having qualified the requisite written examination, was called for document verification as part of the recruitment process conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.03.2019. This advertisement prescribed that candidates must possess a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject along with a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree. During the verification process, the petitioner was informed orally by the verification committee that her candidatures was liable to be rejected on the ground that she had obtained two degrees in the same academic year, typically a combination of a B.Ed. in regular mode and a postgraduate degree ( M.Sc.) in open or distance learning mode. Subsequent to the verification, the respondents issued detailed order rejecting the petitioner’s candidature, citing the same 13 ground. The petitioner contends that her academic qualifications were obtained strictly in accordance with the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms, which expressly permit a student enrolled in a regular programme to simultaneously pursue another degree in distance/online/ODL mode. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. High Court of Rajasthan, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 has held as under : “14. In various judicial pronouncements, the law governing recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as “the rules of the game”. The “game” is the process of selection and appointment. Courts have consistently frowned upon tinkering with the rules of the game once the recruitment process commences. This has crystallised into an oft- quoted legal phrase that “the rules of the game must not be changed midway, or after the game has been played”. Broadly speaking these rules fall in two categories. One which prescribes the eligibility criteria (i.e. essential qualifications) of the candidates seeking employment; and the other which stipulates the method and manner of making the selection from amongst the eligible candidates. xxx xxx xxx 16.The law is settled that after commencement of the recruitment process the eligibility criteria is not to 14 be altered because candidates even if eligible under the altered criteria might not apply by the last date under the belief that they are not eligible as per the advertised criteria. [Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 917] Such alteration/change, therefore, deprives a person of the guarantee of equal opportunity in matters of public employment provided by Article 16 of the Constitution. The reference order [Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC 540 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 353] therefore acknowledges this legal position and in clear terms accepts that “the rules of the game” cannot be changed after commencement of the recruitment process insofar as the eligibility criteria is concerned.” 11. On a careful examination of the records, pleadings, and submissions made by the parties, as also the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner solely on the ground that she possessed two degrees in the same academic year is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The recruitment advertisement clearly prescribes the requisite educational qualifications for the posts of Lecturer, namely a postgraduate degree in the relevant subject and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree. Nowhere in the advertisement is it expressly stipulated that a candidate would be disqualified merely because the two degrees were obtained in the 15 same academic year. The respondents cannot, therefore, introduce a disqualification that was never contemplated at the time of issuing the advertisement, as doing so would amount to altering the eligibility criteria post hoc, which is impermissible under settled legal principles. 12. Further, the petitioner has pursued one degree in regular mode and the other in distance, open, or online mode, in compliance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC), including the 2012 notification and the 2022 Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously. The UGC guidelines explicitly permit a student to pursue one programme in regular mode concurrently with another programme in distance or online mode. There is no statutory or regulatory bar in such cases. The respondents’ reliance on Ordinance 6 of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973, and on certain public notices issued by UGC in 2016, cannot override the express terms of the recruitment advertisement or the applicable UGC guidelines. The Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner was wrongly disqualified on a ground that is neither reflected in the advertisement nor consistent with the UGC norms. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the impugned rejection order is liable to be quashed. 14. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for 16 appointment to the post of Lecturer afresh, strictly in accordance with the terms of the recruitment advertisement, the UGC guidelines, and other applicable statutory provisions. The respondents shall complete this process of fresh consideration and pass appropriate orders within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 15. It is clarified that while considering the petitioner’s candidature, no new disqualification other than those explicitly provided in the advertisement shall be imposed, and due regard shall be given to the fact that the petitioner pursued one degree in regular mode and another in distance/ODL/online mode in conformity with recognized academic norms. 16. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs are awarded. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.03.30 14:14:36 +0530