1 2026:CGHC:19532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1127 of 2022  Siddharth Vaibhaw Dubey S/o Khirendra Kumar Aged About 33 Years R/o Bhatapara, Yadaw Mohalla, Karnoud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Director Education Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1310 of 2022  Kumar Bharti Patel S/o Shri Paras Patel Aged About 39 Years R/o C/o Raman Patkar, Ward No. 9, Nagar Panchayat, Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block - C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Deputy Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.30 17:01:31 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. The District Education Officer, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 6. Ravi Dewangan S/o Chandrahas Dewangan Aged About 26 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Near Sangam Aata Chakki, Boria Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1312 of 2022  Shriram Sahu S/o Poshelal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Nardha, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block-C, Indravathbhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block -C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. The Deputy Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block - C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. Kireet Ram Verma S/o Ganesh Ram Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Barda, Poste Barda, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1326 of 2022  Tikam Lal Sahu S/o Shri Sitaram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Deori, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband (Chhattisgarh), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block-C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block-C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 3 District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Deputy Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block- C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Kireet Ram Verma, S/o Ganesh Ram Verma, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Barda, Post Barda, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh),, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1416 of 2022  Moolshanker Sahu S/o Late Narayan Singh Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Koliyari, Tahsil Bhakhara, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block -C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block-C, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. The Deputy Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, First Floor, Block - C, Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. The District Education Officer, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 6. Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Maheshwari Prasad Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Sel, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, --- Respondent(s) For Respective Petitioners : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha and Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocates For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.04 .2026 1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondent authorities to consider their candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher(E) cadre as per their merit and preference. 4 2. The facts in brief are that an advertisement was issued by the Director, Directorate of Public Instructions on 09.03.2019 for selection of Teachers, cadre – E, cadre – T, Division cadre and District cadre and online applications were invited. The examination was conducted by Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. The petitioners participated in the said recruitment, and thereafter, merit list was published. The petitioner namely Siddharth Vaibhaw Dubey applied as candidate of unreserved category, whereas, other petitioners applied against the post reserved for Other Backward Class. In the examination, the petitioners secured qualifying marks and got position in the merit list. They were offered appointment, at the same time, options were also invited from the selected candidates to opt either for Education Department or Tribal Department. The petitioners opted for E cadre along with their preference for appointment in a particular division. Most of the petitioners opted for Raipur Division, whereas, Siddharth Vaibhaw Dubey opted for Bilaspur Division. The marks obtained by the petitioners and the cut-off marks are given in the chart below :- Sr. No. Name of the Petitioners Marks obtained by the petitioners Preferred Division Cut-Off Marks Marks obtained by Private respondents 1. Siddharth Vaibhaw Dubey 62.5 Bilaspur 62.36 -------- 2. Kumar Bharti Patel 48.362 Raipur -------- 47.328 3. Shriram Sahu 47.61 Raipur 55.053 43.085 4. Tikam Lal Sahu 46.809 Raipur 55.053 43.085 5. Moolshanker Sahu 64.362 Raipur 70.479 63.564 3. Perusal of the above prepared chart would make it clear that though the 5 petitioners secured higher marks, but their claim for E cadre and posting in a particular division was not considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been discriminated and the candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioners were considered for E cadre and preferential posting. They would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the names of the petitioner for appointment in Education department along with preferential posting. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that in the first round of counseling, names of the petitioners were considered for E cadre, and in second round, they were considered for T cadre. He would submit that the cut-off marks for E cadre and preferential posting were higher than the marks secured by the petitioners, and therefore, they were offered appointment in T cadre according to their merit. He would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Perusal of documents would show that though the petitioners secured higher marks, but their claim for E cadre was not considered by the respondents, and at the same time, the candidates, who secured lesser marks were considered for E cadre as well as for preferential posting. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, these petitions are disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to make detailed representations before the respondent No. 2/ Director, Directorate Of Public 6 Instructions within a period of 45 days from today, and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide the representations so made by the petitioners, strictly in accordance with the law keeping in mind merit list and marks secured by the petitioners, preferably within further period of 120 days. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), these petitions are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant