Preetam Lal Padoti vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6079 Chatt

                                            1



                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                              WA No. 501 of 2022
       Abhishek Kumar Nirmalkar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others

     WA/511/2022,WA/519/2022,WA/538/2022,WA/508/2022,WA/510/2022,
     WA/507/2022,WA/513/2022,WA/524/2022,WA/505/2022,WA/522/2022,
     WA/514/2022,WA/512/2022,WA/525/2022,WA/515/2022,WA/523/2022,
                        WA/518/2022 & 538/2022




28.09.2022       Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Mr. C.

             Jayant K. Rao and Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel for the

             respective appellants in all the writ appeals, which arise from the

             common order dated 23.08.2022 passed in Writ Petition (S)

             No.5051 of 2021 and batch.

                 The pivotal question arising in this batch of writ appeals is

             whether the Chhattisgarh School Shiksha Seva (Shaikshik Avam

             Prashasnik Sanvarg) Bharti Tatha Padonnati Niyam, 2019, for

             short, Niyam of 2019, so far as it relates to providing minimum

             qualification to the post of Assistant Teacher, is contrary to the

             notification dated 29.07.2011 issued by the National Council for

             Technical Education.

                 It is the contention of Mr. Siddiqui and other learned counsel

             appearing for the appellants that candidates belonging to the
                                   2


SC/ST/OBC/PH are entitled to relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying

marks under the notification dated 29.07.2011, but provision of

relaxation is absent in Niyam of 2019.

    The same is rebutted by Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy

Advocate General, appearing for the respondents submitting that

relaxation that is provided in the notification dated 29.07.2011 is in

relation to training and not for recruitment.

Mr. Siddiqui, in support of his contention, relies on a judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikas Sankhala and

Others v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Others, reported in (2017) 1

SCC 350.

It is submitted by Mr. Siddiqui that in all the cases he is

appearing, interim order was passed reserving post for the

petitioners in their respective category.

Mr. Rao fairly submits that while no interim order was passed

in his cases, the cases were fixed for final disposal.

Considering the matter in its entirety, the Registry is directed

to list these cases on 13.10.2022, on which date the prayer for

interim order will be considered in detail.

Till then, however, for the ends of justice, it is considered

appropriate to provide that in case vacancies are still available,

one post for each of the appellants shall be kept reserved in their

respective category. Ordered accordingly.

                 Sd/-                                  Sd/-
       (Arup Kumar Goswami)                    (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
            Chief Justice                            Judge




Anu