1 2026:CGHC:19696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 860 of 2025 1 - Manees Kumar Meshram S/o Shri Gorelal Meshram Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And Post - Kodikasa, Tahsil - Ambagarh Chowki, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Siddharth Komal Singh Pardesi Secretary, Department Of School Education, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.O. And P.S. - Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), (Contemnors) 2 - Rituraj Raghuvanshi Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Dr. Vijay Khandelwal District Education Officer, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed this writ petition looking to the willful disobedience of the RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.05.01 17:15:13 +0530 2 respondent authority of not granting appointment to the petitioners on the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to order passed in WA No. 501/2022 and connected matter. 2. Counsel for the respondents submits that after passing of the order in favour of the petitioners by the Division Bench of this Court, claim of the petitioner was considered after granting relaxation of 5% marks, however, even after granting relaxation of 5% to the petitioners therein they could not be given appointment because they were not possessing requisite qualification of D.Ed. They also pointed out that according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court the person/applicant who are appointed as Assistant Teacher should possess the requisite qualification with Diploma in Education i.e. D.Ed. mandatorily. As petitioner does not fulfill requisite qualification, petitioners were not given appointment and therefore, there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. 3. At this stage counsel for the petitioner would submits that recruitment proceedings initiated by the respondents are of the year 2019. The appointment order was issued to some of the teachers leaving the petitioners which made the petitioners to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition making a specific prayer that petitioners are also entitled for relaxation of 5% marks in their academic qualifications which was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court in their favour. He submits 3 that thereafter the respondent authority has not considered the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent- State seeking opinion to challenge the order passed by Division Bench before Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that in the meantime the order dated 11.08.2023 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India has been passed and further the clarificatory order has been passed in case bearing No. M.A. Dairy No.4303/2024 dated 08.04.2024 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the judgment will have prospective effect. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. This Contempt petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not given appointment, counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that petitioners claim were considered by the respondent after granting 5% relaxation on the educational qualification. It is also not in dispute that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Devesh Sharma vs. Union of India has held that the persons to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher should possessed the qualification of D.Ed. also, along with other qualifications. Admittedly petitioner herein do not possess qualification of D.Ed. but for B.Ed. 6. Admittedly the respondent authorities in compliance of the order passed by Division Bench have granted 5% relaxation to petitioner in their educational qualifications, however, they 4 could not be given appointment only because of the fact that they do not possess D.Ed. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the application seeking clarification in an application Dairy No.4303/2024 in its dated 08.04.2024 has observed thus as below : “We accordingly hold that the judgment delivered by this Bench on 11th August, 2023 shall have prospective operation. But prospective operation of this judgment shall be only for those candidates who were appointed without any qualification or conditions imposed by any Court of law to the effect that their appointment would be subject to final outcome of the case which might have had been instituted by them and such candidates were in regular employment without any disqualification and were appointed in pursuance of a notice of advertisement where B.Ed. was stipulated to be valid qualification. Services of only such candidates shall not be disturbed because of this judgment.” 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am satisfy that respondent authorities have not willfully disobeyed the order passed in WA No. 501/2022 and connected matter. It cannot be said that respondent authorities have willfully disobeyed order passed by Division Bench in not granting appointment to the petitioner as they do not possess requisite minimum qualification of D.Ed. along with other qualifications. 5 8. For the foregoing discussions, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent is dropped, notice is discharged, and the contempt petition is closed. 9. Petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to law, if he aggrieved for his non appointment. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi