1 2026:CGHC:16660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2329 of 2022  Karishma Patel D/o Shri Jitendra Patel Aged About 28 Years Occupation Unemployed, R/o Village Tangar, Post Gonda, Block And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The District Education Officer District Rajanandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 10.4.2026 1) Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by setting aside the order dated 30.9.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 2 and direct the respondents authority to recognize the candidature of the petitioner for post of Assistant Teacher (Science) is eligible and issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10.2 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.13 14:09:27 +0530 2 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent- department issued an advertisement on 9.3.2019 for appointment on various posts including Assistant Teacher which required the candidates to possess - (i) graduation degree ; (ii) 50% in B.Ed/D.Ed and (iii) TET certificate. He further submits that in the year 2019, petitioner was not having the TET certificate but she subsequently obtained the same and according to the circulars issued by State Government dated 26.6.2021 and 14.7.2021 validity of TET certificates was extended from period of seven years to lifetime. He contends that petitioner had obtained the TET certificate in the year 2011 itself and by virtue of circulars dated 26.6.2021 and 14.7.2021, validity of said certificate would be for the entire lifetime, therefore respondent authorities ought to have considered the candidature of petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. He prays to set aside the order dated 30.9.2021 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby representation made by the petitioner has been rejected. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was not having the TET certificate on the date of issuance of advertisement, therefore her candidature was rejected. She further submits that benefit of subsequent circulars cannot be extended to the petitioner retrospectively. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 5) Admittedly, petitioner passed TET examination in the year 2011 and according the prevailing circulars, validity of said certificate was for a period of seven years which elapsed in year 2018. Advertisement was issued in year 2019 and by that time, validity of said certificate had expired. After rejection of petitioner’s candidature, circulars dated 26.6.2021 and 14.7.2021 were issued by State Government granting lifetime validity to the TET certificates, therefore the benefits of those circulars cannot be extended retrospectively. 6) In view of the foregoing discussion, in my opinion, the authority concerned has rightly rejected the representation made by petitioner and no case is made out for interference. 7) Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a