1 2026:CGHC:8611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5367 of 2022 Nagesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Roopram Chandrakar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Darrabhata, Post-Mudpar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretaty, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Municipal O昀케cer, Nagar Panchayat, Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rishabh Chandra Dev Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 4 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput , Judge Order on Board 17.02.2026 1. Heard Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.19 11:33:24 +0530 2 Also heard Mr. Rishabh Chandra Dev Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State as well as Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. This writ petition (s) has been 昀椀led by the petitioner with the following relief: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and other writ by quashing the impugned revisional order dated 25/01/2022 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by respondent No. 1, appellate order dated 26/08/2021 (ANNEXURE P/2) passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 21/11/2014 (ANNEXURE P/5) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the service of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (Municipal) with all consequential bene昀椀ts from the date of termination of the order dated 21/11/2014. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which may be considered 昀椀t and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a postgraduate in Sanskrit from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, (U.P.). He applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer (LB) with respondent No. 4. He was selected and, by order dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure P/4), was appointed to the post of Lecturer (LB), Sanskrit, at Minimata Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kasdol. Subsequently, his services were terminated vide 3 order dated 21.11.2014 on the ground that the mark-sheet submitted by him for appointment to the said post was issued by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, (U.P.), which is not a recognized institution. 4. Challenging the said termination order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, District – Baloda Bazar–Bhatapara, which was registered as Appeal Case No. 202009210100012/अ/89/2019-20. The learned Collector, vide order dated 26.10.2021, dismissed the appeal. 5. Against the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2021, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No. 1, i.e., the State Government, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2022. Therefore, the instant petition seeking the above-mentioned relief has been 昀椀led. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner obtained his postgraduate degree in Sanskrit from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, (U.P.). Although the name of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, 昀椀nds mention at serial No. 29 in the list of fake universities issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the issue regarding its recognition is stated to be pending consideration before the District Judge, Lucknow. Therefore, it is contended that it cannot be conclusively said that the petitioner has obtained his postgraduate degree from an unrecognized university. It is further submitted that the State Government and the Collector failed to properly appreciate this aspect of the matter while dismissing the appeal and revision. The impugned orders were passed without due consideration of this issue, hence, the present petition has been 昀椀led seeking the aforementioned reliefs. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as Mr. Agrawal submit that the petitioner obtained his postgraduate degree from an institution that is not recognized by the UGC. Unless the degree obtained by the petitioner is recognized in accordance with Section 3 of the University Grants Commission 4 Act, 1956, the petitioner cannot be said to possess the requisite quali昀椀cation for appointment to the post of Lecturer (LB) in Sanskrit. 8. It is submitted that this aspect was duly considered by respondent No. 4 while passing the order of termination and was adequately addressed by the Collector and the State Government while dismissing the appeal and revision, holding that the petitioner’s claim lacks merit. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 10. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner obtained his postgraduate degree from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow (U.P.). There is no dispute that the said institution is not recognized by the UGC and that it 昀椀nds mention in the list of fake universities issued by the UGC. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recognition of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad is under consideration before the District Judge, Lucknow, the fact remains that, as on date, the institution continues to be included in the list of fake universities published by the UGC. Until and unless the petitioner ful昀椀lls the eligibility criteria and possesses the requisite recognized quali昀椀cation for appointment to the post of Lecturer (LB), Sanskrit, he cannot be permitted to continue on the said post. The 昀椀ndings recorded by the Collector as well as by the State Government do not appear to be contrary to the record, illegal, or without jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Abhishek