Chattisgarh High Court
Rahul Das Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI 2025:CGHC:38369
Date: 2025.08.07
20:00:42 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5362 of 2021
* - Rahul Das Nishad S/o Shri Preetam Das Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o
Ward No. 17, Shiv Mandir Road Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar P. O. And P. S. Rakhi,
Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Raipur District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Divisional Joint Director, Education Division Durg, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04/08/2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
10.1 To kindly quash the order dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure
P/1) issued by the Divisional Joint Director, Education Division,
Durg.
10.2 To issue appropriate writ, directing the respondent
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment
on the post of Teacher (E & T) cadre) on the basis of CTET
certificate.
10.3 Grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in
favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just
in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of
the costs to the petitioner.
2. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for
selection of Teacher, subject English. He would fairly submit that the
petitioner acquired qualification of CTET after submission of application
and declaration of result by respondent authorities. He would submit
that at that time of verification of the documents, the petitioner was
having qualification of CTET and that document was placed by the
petitioner before the concerned authority. He would contend that the
candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that on
the date of submission of application, the petitioner was not having said
qualification. He would submit that the respondent authorities may be
directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the
judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the matter of Himmat
Singh Bais Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in WPS No.
2353/2011 dated 25.08. 2011.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer
appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit
that on the date of submission of application form, the petitioner was
not having requisite qualification of CTET, therefore, his candidature
was rejected. He would contend that subsequently acquiring requisite
qualification would not make the petitioner eligible for post of Teacher
(English). He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
5. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Ishan Verma,
this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of
the petitioner to make a fresh representation raising all his grievances
as informed by Mr. Ishan Verma that the posts are still lying vacant and
in turn, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the representation so
made by the petitioner expeditiously strictly in accordance with law
after due verification of the vacancy, eligibility.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
