[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Deepti Shendey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13668
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1732 of 2021
Deepti Shendey D/o Shri Pyarelal Shendey Aged About 36 Years
R/o 613/44, Awadhpuri, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil Durg, P.S. Nevai,
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education
Department, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through The
Secretary, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, C Block,
Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, C
Block, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. University Grant Commission Through The Secretary, Bahadur
Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002., District : New Delhi, Delhi
6. Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya, Durg, (Durg University)
Through The Registrar, Raipur Naka, Durg Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7. Pandit Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
Through The Registrar, Bilaspur Koni Birkona Marg, Gram Post -
Birkona, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, P.L.
For Respondent- : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate
Universities
For Respondent-UGC : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent -VYAPAM : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
23.3.2026
1) By way of this petition, petitioner have sought following reliefs :-
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to set aside the impugned order
dated 26.10.2020 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by
respondent No. 4, approved by respondent No.
3, in the interest of justice.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to direct respondent authorities to
grant appointment to the petitioner in the post
of Lecturer English subject T cadre or E cadre,
declaring her eligible, as per paw in the interest
of justice.
10.3 That, any other relief/ order which
may deem fit and just in the facts and
circumstances of the case including award of
the costs of the petition may be given.
2) Facts of present case are that on 9.3.2019, Directorate of Public
Instruction issued an advertisement for appointment on various
posts of lecturers, teachers and assistant teachers under 'T' and
other cadres for various subjects. The petitioner who belongs to
scheduled caste, finding herself eligible for the post of Lecturer
(English), applied accordingly. She secured overall rank 235th ,
rank 12th in scheduled caste category, rank 132 nd in female
category and rank 5th in scheduled caste - female category.
However, during this process, an objection was raised with regard
to her social status and same was removed. Subsequently, Joint
Director, Directorate of Public Instruction rejected the candidature
of petitioner vide order dated 26.10.2020 (Annexure P/1) on the
ground that she obtained two degrees in the same academic year
2017, M.A. English and first semester of B.Ed.
3) Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submits that
although petitioner was meritorious but her candidature was
rejected by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 26.10.2020 on the
ground that she appeared in final semester of M.A. English and
first Semester of B.Ed. in year 2017. He further submits that
petitioner was pursuing her studies as M.A. Final student in year
2017 through distance learning mode whereas she was a regular
student of B.Ed. in year 2017, thus there was no overlapping of
courses. He contends that no clear prohibition has been made by
the UGC or any competent body regarding prosecuting regular
degree and degree from distance course in same year by a
student, therefore order impugned is bad in law and deserves to
be quashed.
4) On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, counsel for the
respondent-Universities submits that respondent authorities have
rightly rejected the candidature of petitioner as she pursued two
courses in the same academic year which violates the Ordinance
No. 6 of Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya, Durg.
5) Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, counsel for the respondent-UGC submits
that no regulation was issued by the UGC at the relevant time with
regard to pursuing two courses simultaneously.
6) Mr. T.L. Bareth, P.L. and Mr. Yogendra Pandey, counsel for
respondent-VYAPAM support the order impugned.
7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record with utmost circumspection.
8) The candidature of petitioner has been rejected solely on the
ground that she has obtained two degrees in the same academic
year, namely, Master of Arts in English and First Semester of
B.Ed. However, it is quite vivid that petitioner pursued Master of
Arts in English through distance learning mode whereas she
pursued B.Ed. Course as regular student. Also, the advertisement
dated 9.3.2019 issued by the Directorate of Public Instruction
does not specify that a candidate who has obtained two degrees
in the same academic year is disqualified from consideration for
appointment to the post of Lecturer (English).
9) In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, decision taken
by the respondents No. 3 and 4 appears to arbitrary and illegal.
Accordingly, the order dated 26.10.2020 is hereby quashed and
respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to consider the petitioner's
case for appointment to the post of Lecturer (English) afresh and
pass and appropriate order within sixty days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
10) Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
