Swati Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1696 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Swati Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 February, 2025

                                               1/7




                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                    WPS No. 925 of 2025

                   Swati Dewangan & Ors. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.



                                          Order Sheet


         03/02/2025            Mr. Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioner.
                               Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate and Mr.
                         Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate for the State.
Digitally signed               Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Advocate on behalf of Dr.
by RAGHVENDRA
JAT
                         S.K. Pande, counsel for respondent No. 3.

Mr. Omprakash Sahu & Mr. Vikas Kaushik, petitioner in person (Intervenor).

Heard on Admission and I.A. No. 01/2025, which is an application for interim relief.

The petitioners have filed this petition while seeking indulgence of this Court in counseling process which is scheduled to be commenced on 05.02.20225 for the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioners possess all requisite qualifications, including a Diploma in Education (D.Ed.), however, since in the

advertisement it has been stated that in the advertisement in respect of essential qualification they should have passed B.Ed or D.Ed or B.L.Ed degree as such due to misunderstanding, they have only stated about their B.Ed degree presuming that only one of the degree is required to be mentioned. Later on, on the basis of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5068/2023 and other connected matters dated 11th August, 2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for appointment of Primary Teachers, the requirement of D.Ed or D.EI.Ed would be the requisite qualification and the B.Ed degree holders would not be allowed to participate in the recruitment process of the Primary Teachers. Based on this, the Division Bench of this Court has also passed orders and accordingly the Assistant Teachers who were appointed on the basis of their B.Ed degree, the appointment orders of the teachers who were selected and appointed on the basis of B.Ed degree were canceled and fresh counseling process is started. It was argued that the petitioners are having D.Ed degree which they have obtained prior to issuance of advertisement as such they are entitled for participating in the selection process and in the counseling they are required to be called, however, since they have not mentioned their D.Ed degree in their application form due to mistake as the same was not mentioned that only D.Ed degree holders would be

considered as such they have not mentioned their D.Ed degree in their application form. He further submits that the Chhattisgarh Professional Board has issued memo dated 26.09.2023 while considering the order dated 05.09.2023 passed in WPS Nos.6045/2023, 6088/2023, 6104/2023 & 6084/2023 the Director Public Instruction Directorate to consider the application of the aspirants who are having D.Ed and D.El.Ed degree. It was argued that on the basis of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the different States are also allowing the aspirants to submit their D.Ed degree in the website so that their application may be considered for their appointment as Primary Teacher.

The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has also consequent to the above, numerous representations have been received from the candidates to consider their qualification of two year Diploma stating that they have both the qualification of Diploma and B.Ed but have filled the qualification of B.Ed in the online application form. The competent authority has considered such representations and has allowed for the opening of online window for updation of the qualification only. It may also be noted that in any circumstances, no updation in any other field in the online application form will be considered. It has been argued that since the fifth stage of counseling is going to be started from 05th February, 2025 as such some

interim order is required to be granted in favour of the petitioners so that they may participate in the counseling proceedings.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief if they were having certificate of D.Ed or D.EI.Ed, they should have submitted their degree along with the application. They are not entitled to get any relief as they have not mentioned about their D.Ed degree in the application form. At the fag end of recruitment process if the petitioners will be considered it will create various complications and the process of recruitment will be delayed. He further submits that since the counseling process is going to be scheduled from 05th February, 2025 a such it will be difficult for the respondents to manage the counseling proceedings.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Vyapam has also supported the arguments advance by the State Government while stating that the process is at the advanced stage and it would be difficult to manage the counseling.

Mr. Omprakash Sahu and Mr. Vikas Kaushik, petitioner in person appearing as interveners in this case have submitted that they are aspirants in this case as such they have filed intervention applications today i.e. 03.02.2025 opposing the prayer of the petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

Considering the facts tht the petitioners are having D.Ed degree prior to issuance of advertisement for appointment, however, due to misunderstanding, they have not stated the same in their application form as in the advertisement it was stated that requisite qualification would be D.Ed or B.Ed or B.L.Ed degree as such even after holding D.Ed degree they have not mentioned it in their appliction and have also not annexed the same in their application.

Further, considering the fact that the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has issued a communication for considering the D.Ed degree holders for addition of their degree in the form and also considering the fact that the Bihar Public Service Commission has also allowed the aspirants to download their D.EI.Ed degree in the website. This Court of the view is that the petitioners are required to be allowed to mention their D.Ed degree along with their certificate in their form and for this they are required to file separate application for each of the petitioners before the VYAPAM and the VYAPAM in turn is directed to consider their applications and to prepare a list along with those persons who are having D.Ed degree prior to issuance of advertisement and allow them to participate in the counseling proceedings. At this stage the counsel for respondent State as well as respondent No. 3 VYAPAM

obtained instruction as to whether the counseling proceedings can be extended for a week so that necessary arrangements may be done by the State as well as VYAPAM in order to prepare a list and to call the eligible person having D.Ed degree for counseling for appointment as Assistant Teacher. On instruction it has been submitted by both the counsels that they will extend the date and they will call the fifth round counseling from 10th of February, 2025.

Accordingly, purely as an interim measure each of the petitioners are directed to file separate applications for considering their D.Ed degree in order to participate in the counseling proceedings. The application shall be annexed with copy of D.Ed degree duly certified by each of the petitioner before the State and VYAPAM, and, in turn State and VYAPAM shall consider the same and to allow the petitioners on the basis of their D.Ed degree to participate in the counseling proceedings which is said to be commenced from 10 th of February, 2025.

It is made clear that this Court has not made any opinion on the merits of the case and this is an interim protection granted to the petitioners for their filing of application in order to mention their D.Ed degree and they will be called for counseling in accordance with their further eligibility.

The respondents are further directed not to pass

any final order in the forthcoming counseling process without prior permission of this Court.

Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return. Thereafter, two weeks more time is granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder.

List this case in the week commencing 24 th February, 2025.

Certified copy by tomorrow.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

Raghu Jat