High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.09.26 15:57:48 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3052 of 2025 NAFR District Ghinara Dinara Korba, 1 - Satish Kumar Nishad S/o P.R. Nishad Aged About 37 Years R/o Street 25, Dashehra Maidan, Shanti Nagar, Supela, Bhilai,, Post - Supela, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhuvneshwar Sahu S/o Tarachand Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Vinayak Nagar, Ring Road, Fingeshwar Ward, Ward No.-12, Fingesh, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) 3 - Satyanarayan Ratiya S/o Shankar Lal Ratiya Aged About 29 Years R/o 1 Ginara, (C.G.) 4 - Derhin Dhidhi S/o Ganeshu Ram Dhidhi Aged About 35 Years R/o Satnami Para, Birkona, Ward No.-15, Barbaspur, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Navneet Kumar Yadu S/o Rewa Ram Yadu Aged About 32 Years R/o Manodaga Gali, Near Punjab Rice Mil, Gandhi Mandir Ward Bhatapara, Post - Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Dhananjay Verma S/o Ashok Kumar Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o House No.-97, Ward Kurmipara Bahera, Post - Karesara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) 7 - Satyavati C/o Bijal Kashyap Aged About 27 Years R/o House No.-64, Ward No.- 16, School Para Batha, Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 8 - Ramsajivan S/o Raja Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Baradwar Tanda, Vikaskhand - Kota Tanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Gulab Ram Patel S/o Bhoj Ram Patel Aged About 29 Years R/o Belari Bhudeopur, Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) Korba - versus --- Petitioner(s) Mahanadi 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Chhattisgarh Bhawan Naya Raipur, 2 - Director Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal Through The Controller, V.Y.A.P.A.M. Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh Raipur, --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3999 of 2025 1 - Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Lalit Prashad Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Balaji Traders, Kharmora, Dadarkhurd, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Harishankar S/o Bhupendra Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Akhrar, District Mungeli Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chandani D/o Kamal Nayan Aged About 26 Years R/o Kirari, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Horilal Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Saristal, Disrict Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 5 - Anju D/o Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 291, Ward No. 8 Chandni Chowk, Bhoring, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 6 - Priyanka Kashyap D/o Dubendra Kumar Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 22, Ward No. 11, Beechpara, Kotari Road, Thakurpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 7 - Nandini W/o Raghunandan Prashad Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Beechpara, Thakurpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 8 - Satyawati D/o Bijai Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 16, School Para, Batha, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Department Of School Education, 1st Floor, Third Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Hod Building New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examinatiion Board Through Its Chairman, Vyapam Bhavan, Narth Block, Sector 1 Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 492001 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 3946 of 2025 1 - Rameshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Santosh Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Patharra, Tahsil - Fulwari, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 - Murli Chandrwanshi S/o Ghanshyam Chandrawanshi Aged About 31 Years R/o House No. 146, Jewdan Marg 8, District - Kawardha Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Devendra Verma S/o Jagdish Singh Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Kewanchhi, Jhal, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mona Khandey D/o Rameshwar Khandey Aged About 26 Years R/o Guruwaindabri, Lalpur, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Rudrani Manikpuri D/o Manohar Das Manikpuri Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 5 Sardar Patel, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 6 - Mukesh Kumar S/o Komal Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o Rajapara, Kargi Khurd Kota, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 7 - Geetanjali Sahu D/o Dolamani Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Risora, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 8 - Pradeep Lonia S/o Rewa Ram Lonia Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Navrangpur, Lormi, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh 9 - Komeshwari Alha D/o Manoj Kumar Alha Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 36, Ward No. 3, Buta Kasa, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 10 - Tejram Patel S/o Prahlad Patel Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 5, Purani Basti, Khaprapali, Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 11 - Amit Kumar S/o Jivdhan Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Kera, District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 12 - Muskan Jaiswal D/o Sanjeev Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Near Sanskriti Bhawan, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh 13 - Madhuri Sahu D/o Shivnarayan Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Bareli, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 14 - Ashok Kumar Sahu S/o Sitaram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 353, Deendayal Para, Maro Ward No. 10, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh 15 - Anju D/o Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Chandani Chawk, Bhoring, District - Mahsamund Chhattisgarh 16 - Nagina D/o Mohan Singh Maravi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Gudum Devri, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 17 - Ajay Shankar S/o Ramadhar Chhtrawani Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Hardidih, Urtum, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 18 - Durgesh Nandni D/o Bharat Lal Dhruw Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Megha, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 19 - Girvar Ram Sahu S/o Krishna Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 129, Ward No. 20, Village - School Para, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 20 - Kajal Tirkey D/o Libin Tirkey Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Ludeg, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 21 - Sandeep Kumar Verma S/o Akrum Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Verma Mohalla, Tekar, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 22 - Hirawati D/o Rud Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Sadak Para, Ward No. 3, Kera, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 23 - Manoj Kumar S/o Ramratan Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 208, Atriya, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 24 - Deepak Kumar S/o Jeetram Aged About 29 Years R/o Durga Mandir Chawk, Ward No. 8, Ramhepur Khurd, District - Kawardha Kabirdham Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal Through The Controller, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : For State : For Respondent/Vyapam
Legal Reasoning
Shri Anup Majumdar, Shri Dhaneshwar Yadav and Shri Ishan Verma, Advocates. Shri Mandeep Karla, Advocate through virtual mode (in WPS No.3946/2025) Shri Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate. Shri Avinash Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Decision
Order reserved on 26.06.2025 O rder delivered on 26 .09.2025 1. All these three writ petitions have common facts and a common issue involved; therefore, they are being heard and decided together. 2. W.P.S. No. 3052/2025 is filed by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for records with relation to case of the petitioners. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondents authorities for calling the petitioners for counselling as per there rank in 4 merit list in there respective categories for the post of Assistant Teachers for fulfilling 984 posts which were advertised in the advertisement dated 24/05/2023. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly pass any necessary order or direction to respondent authorities which may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. W.P.S. No. 3946/2025 is filed by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs:- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to forthwith implement the judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed in WPS No. 3541 of 2023 in its entirety, by re-arranging the selection list for the post of Assistant Teacher (Class I to V), excluding all ineligible B.Ed. candidates as well as those already appointed in violation of law; 10.2 Direct the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list exclusively comprising D.El.Ed. and TET-qualified candidates from the existing pool, and to conduct the sixth round of counselling on the basis of such corrected merit list before the validity period expires on 01.07.2025; 10.3 Further direct the respondents to consider and appoint each of the petitioners herein, who are fully qualified with D.El.Ed. and TET credentials, against the 1,316 unfilled posts of Assistant Teachers in accordance with law, equity and merit; 10.4 Direct the respondents to immediately conduct counseling for the remaining 984 unfilled posts of Assistant Teachers as acknowledged in the DPI's letter dated 13.08.2024, and to fill the same strictly from among eligible D.El.Ed. and TET-qualified candidates, including the petitioners herein, before the validity period expires on 01.07.2025; 10.5 Grant such further relief or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.” 4. W.P.S. No. 3999/2025 is filed by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs: “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to immediately conduct the sixth round of counselling for the post of Assistant Teacher (Class I to V), as per the Advertisement dated 04.05.2023, in order to fill the remaining 1,316 vacancies within the extended validity period expiring on 01.07.2025; 5 10.2. That, in the alternative, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to externd the validity period of the ongoing recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teachers beyond 01.07.2025, in the interest of justice, so as to enable the conduct of the 6th round of counselling and to ensure that the remaining vacant posts are duly filled in a fair and transparent manner; 10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct that, in the event the petitioners are found fit and qualified after the conduct of the sixth round of counselling, formal appointment orders may be issued in their favour within a reasonable time” 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are aspirants in the selection process of Assistant Teacher under the advertisement dated 04-05-2023, issued by the Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh Government. Total 793 posts of Assistant Teacher (E-Cadre) and 5492 posts of Assistant Teacher (T-Cadre) were advertised including the distribution of reserved categories. In the advertisement, the minimum educational qualifications required for the said posts were fixed as:- ▪ Higher Secondary Examination pass with minimum 45% marks; and ▪ Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) or Bachelor’s in Education (B.Ed.) or Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) and ▪ Teacher Eligibility Test passed (TET) (Primary Level) 6. The Right to Education Act, 2009 (in short “Act of 2009”) provides for the requisite qualification of Teachers. The Central Government has authorized the National Council for Teacher Education (in short “NCTE”) to lay down the qualification, as provided under Section 23 of the Act of 2009. The NCTE initially laid down the qualification for appointment of Assistant Teachers vide notification dated 23-08-2010 and subsequently amended the same vide notification dated 28-06-2018, by which the B.Ed. degree has been included as an eligible qualification for the post of Teacher, for elementary education, i.e. for teaching of Class I to Class V. The State Government framed the Rules in the name of “Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Education 6 and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (in short “Rules of 2019”). Under the Rules of 2019, the said advertisement dated 04- 05-2023 was issued for appointment on the posts of Assistant Teachers (“E” and “T” cadre). 7. The petitioners have also applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and appeared in the written examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (in short “VYAPAM”), held on 10-06-2023. The result was declared on 02-07-2023, and a consolidated merit list was prepared in which the petitioners have also been declared passed and their names find place in the said merit list. On 23-08-2023, the VYAPAM issued an amended notice by which the process of appointment through online counselling was introduced, and a new merit list was going to be published for the appointment of Assistant Teachers. 8. The minimum educational qualification fixed in the advertisement dated 04- 05-2023 was challenged by the candidates in several writ petitions before this Court on the ground of allowing the B.Ed./B.El.Ed. qualified candidates participating in the selection process is violative of the notification issued by the NCTE. An interim order was issued on 21-08-2023 in the writ petitions directing the participation of B.Ed. qualified candidates shall be kept in abeyance, till the next date of hearing of the writ petition. 9. The said interim order dated 21-08-2023 was challenged by the some of the candidates before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 35325/2023, in which on 29-08-2023, the interim order dated 21-08-2023 passed by this Court was stayed and clearified that the recruitment process, which was in progress prior to the date of said interim order passed by this Court, shall continue, however the appointments, if any, made thereunder will be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 7 10. The writ petition was allowed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02-04-2024, and the advertisement dated 04-05-2023 was quashed to the extent it permitted the candidates having B.Ed. qualification to participate in the recruitment process of Assistant Teachers. It was directed in the order dated 02-04-2024 to re-arrange the merit list of selected candidates after excluding the B.Ed. candidates. The order dated 02-04- 2024 was also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the same was also dismissed. 11. In between the re-arrangement of the selected candidates in compliance of the order dated 02-04-2024, some of the candidates again approached before this Court in W.P.S. No. 925/2025, claiming that although, they had the higher qualification of B.Ed. and therefore, they could not opt the D.Ed. at the time of filing the application form, therefore, they may be permitted to participate in counselling process on the basis of D.Ed. qualification. Vide order dated 03-02-2025, this Court has granted an interim order allowing the D.Ed. candidates to participate in counselling. 12. It is also the case of the petitioners that till date, five rounds of counselling have been done for recruitment on the 793 + 5492 posts of Assistant Teachers. Before the interim order dated 21-08-2023, the candidates up to the rank of 3661 (Open) and 5596 (Women) in unreserved category, 10990 (Open) and 11937 (Women) in Scheduled Caste category, 132419 (Open) and 132419 (Women) in Scheduled Tribes category and 7171 (Open) and 9125 (Women) in OBC category, were participated in counselling. After the order dated 02-04-2024 passed in W.P.S. No. 3541/2023, W.P.S. No. 5788/2023 and W.P.S. No. 7344/2023 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, and dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 5 th round of counselling was started, vide memo dated 24/25-02-2025. 8 13. In the meantime, the initial select list issued on 30-06-2023 stood expired on 01-07-2024; however, it was extended up to 01-07-2025 by the Cabinet decision of the State Government. 14. Vide order dated 03-02-2025 passed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 925/2025, the interim order dated 03-02-2025 was modified and permitted the State Government to verify the D.Ed. qualification and to submit the verification report before the Court for its perusal. It was also allowed to issue appointment orders to the candidates whose credentials were found undisputed after obtaining permission from this Court, after the fifth round of counselling. Still, 984+1316 posts of Assistant Teachers are vacant, for which the candidates of the lower rank are not called upon in counselling. The petitioners have made their representation to complete the selection process till the vacant posts are filled up and to allow the candidates of the lower rank, but no heed has been paid to the representation of the petitioners. Hence, these petitions. 15. Mr. Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, appearing in W.P.S. No. 3052/2025, would submit that the advertisement issued on 04- 05-2023 was for the appointment of Assistant Teachers on a total of 6285 posts. As per the instructions of the advertisement, Clause 6 (ii) states that the select list would be valid up to one year from the date of its issuance, and (iii) provides that the wait list would be valid up to one year. No waitlist was prepared by the authorities. The vacant posts remaining in the advertisement of the year 2019 are carried forward and included in the total posts advertised. A common merit list was prepared, and a total of 142268 candidates were selected, out of which, the candidates are being called for counselling and appointed as per their merit position. After the passing of the order dated 02-04-2024, the B.Ed. candidates were excluded from the selection process. Since the observations made in the order dated 02-04- 9 2024 were not complied with, the Contempt Petition was filed before this Court. The DPI issued a clarification on 03-01-2025 that a total of 984 posts of Assistant Teachers are still vacant, and the validity of the results of the direct recruitment process of the year 2023 is over on 01-07-2024. Vide letter dated 24-02-2025, it was informed that the validity of the select list is extended from 01-07-2024 to 01-07-2025. The initial list was issued on 01- 07-2023, which was valid up to 01-07-2025 and ultimately extended up to 01-07-2025. The fifth round of counselling was also done vide letter dated 12-02-2025, in which the 2613 candidates were called, against the vacancy created from the exclusion of the B.Ed. candidates. He would further submit that despite the vacancy of posts, the State Government is not willing to fill up the said vacant post from the select list, which is valid up to 01-07-2025. Another memo was issued on 24-04-2025 stating that the sixth round of counselling is proposed, and the proposal was sent to the State Government. The appointing authority of Assistant Teacher is the Director, Public Instructions, but the authorities are unnecessarily keeping the matter pending for instructions from the State Government. The Hon’ble Supreme Court says that the authorities have to complete the selection process. Though the petitioners have no indefeasible right to claim appointment merely on the basis that their names are in the select list, the reason should be assigned as to why they are not appointing the candidates despite the availability of vacant posts. If the petitioner is under the zone of consideration, he has a right to an appointment. The State Government should conclude the process of appointment under the subject advertisement. This is a special drive to recruit teachers in the scheduled and remote areas of the State. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (12) SCC 798 (Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others v. South East Central Railway and Others), and the 10 order dated 07-11-2024 passed by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2634/2013, 2635/2013 and 2636/2013 (Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others). The candidates are waiting for the last two years; many of them have crossed the maximum age limit. Therefore, the writ petition may be allowed. 16. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, appearing in W.P.S. No. 3999/2025, adopting the submissions made by Mr. Anoop Majumdar, learned counsel appearing in W.P.S. No. 3052/2025 and would further submit that there is no requirement for seeking instruction from the State Government by the appointing authority, i.e. the Director of Public Instructions. The advertisement is issued in the year 2023, and huge public money is spent in the recruitment process, examination etc. The public money could be saved by conducting the sixth round of counselling, instead of initiating a fresh recruitment process. The legitimate expectations of the petitioners would have been hampered. After exclusion of B.Ed. candidates, the fifth round of counselling was held, and the petitioners may be provided further chance of counselling, so that they may be appointed to the vacant posts. 17. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioners, appearing through virtual mode, in W.P.S. No. 3946/2025, apart from the submissions made by the other two counsels of connected writ petitions, would also submit that in the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench, there is no stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There are two orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by which the State Government was directed to implement the order dated 15-07-2024. Despite multiple observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court from the date of filing the petition till the decision, the counselling was never done. The State Government advertised for the 6285 vacant posts, and if all the vacant posts are filled up, the petitioners would have no legitimate 11 expectations. The total of 6285 posts is not reduced by any order, and vacant posts are still lying vacant. In the order dated 02-04-2024, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the advertisement dated 04- 05-2023, to the extent it permits the candidates having the qualification of B.Ed. to participate in the selection process of Assistant Teacher, is illegal and quashed, and the State Government was directed to rearrange the selection list in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 2019 excluding the candidates participated in the selection process having B.Ed. qualification, and this exercise deserves to be completed within a period of six weeks. Therefore, after exclusion of the B.Ed. candidates, the rank of the petitioner would go on the upper side, but this has not been done by the State Government. The rank of the petitioners would be considered as per the rearranged select list and not from the initial select list. The petitioners are within the zone of consideration if the select list is rearranged. Before the expiry of the select list, the Hon’ble Division Bench said on 02-04-2024 that the select list should be rearranged. On what basis the 984 posts are left vacant, there is no explanation from the State Government. The Director of Public Instruction wrote a letter on 24-04-2025 to the State Government, requesting to initiate the process of the sixth round of counselling and informed that 1316 posts are still vacant. Though the petitioner cannot claim appointment, they can very well claim for conclusion of the recruitment process. The name of the petitioner was in the select list, but the counselling was not done in the prescribed time. There is no basis for not conducting counselling for the remaining vacant posts of Assistant Teachers. The State Government gave an evasive reply to the allegation of arbitrariness in the selection process. No rank or cut-off marks have been disclosed after every round of counselling so that the claim of the petitioner could be determined. The very object of the order of the Hon’ble Division bench is to complete the 12 selection process within the stipulated time. Therefore, the State Government may be directed to fill the vacant post of Assistant Teachers from the select list issued under the recruitment process of 2023. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/State would submit that the select list of the recruitment process was declared on 02-07-2023. In the meantime, on 11-08-2023, the S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20743/2021 is allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that SLP, the challenge was the exclusion/inclusion of B.Ed. qualification holder candidates in the recruitment process for Assistant Teacher. The W.P.S. No. 5788/2023 was filed before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in which, on 21-08-2023, an interim order was passed and before the start of the counselling, the B.Ed. Qualification-holding candidates were excluded from counselling. In the notice dated 22-08-2023, the cut-off rank was also disclosed before the first round of counselling. In the meantime, candidates who hold the D.Ed. qualification but were unable to apply for the post had filed writ petitions before this Court. In one of the writ Petition WPS No. 6045/2023, vide order dated 05-09-2023, this court has directed to consider their candidature bonafidely. At that time, no one had challenged the validity of the select list, i.e. up to 01-07-2024. Before 01-07-2024, the 4 th round of counselling was over. Therefore, a vacancy was created with respect to those candidates who hold the B.Ed. qualification and by the order of the Court, they have been separated. After the passing of the order by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the State Government decided on 24-01-2025, to proceed with the 5th round of counselling. In the 5th round of counselling, the candidates, who were separated on the grounds of B.Ed. qualification, they again approached this Court in Writ Petitions saying that they hold the D.Ed. qualification and they may be permitted to participate in counselling, and the said issue is pending for consideration before this Court. Since some of the 13 certificates were issued by the authorities outside the State, therefore, its verification requires time; therefore, the validity of the select list was extended up to 01-07-2025. The present petitioners are in very low in rank in the select list. He would rely upon the judgment of 1991 (3) SCC 47, 2001 (6) SCC 380, 19. Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent VYAPAM, would submit that after conducting the examination, the VYAPAM issued the select list. Thereafter, the State Government is conducting the counselling. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents annexed to the petitions. 21. It is not in dispute that the advertisement was issued for appointment to a total of 793+5492 posts of Assistant Teachers on 04-05-2023. The minimum qualification for Assistant Teachers as prescribed in the advertisement was B.Ed. qualification. By the order dated 02-04-2024, the B.Ed. qualification holders were excluded from the selection process, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The validity of the select list was initially operative up to 01-07-2024 and thereafter up to 01-07-2025. After the fifth round of counselling, certain posts of Assistant Teachers are still vacant. The substantive claim of the petitioners in the present writ petitions is that the validity of the select list is operative up to 01-07-2025, the posts of Assistant Teachers under the advertisement dated 04-05-2023 are lying vacant, and there is no impediment to fill up the posts from the select list by another round of counselling. Without any reason, the State Government is not filling up the posts, and if the period of the merit list is over, they would proceed with a new advertisement after carrying forward the vacant posts. The appointing authority is the Director of Public Instruction, State Government, but only to defeat the validity of the select list; they took time and forwarded the matter to the State Government for instructions, which is not required in 14 the present case. Therefore, the State authorities may be directed to complete the recruitment process by calling the candidates of the select list on the vacant posts of Assistant Teachers under the said advertisement dated 04-05-2023. 22. The question in the present case is whether the petitioners have accrued the right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher under the subject advertisement by participating in the recruitment process. When the merit list was published, whether the petitioners had legitimate expectations to be recruited, having participated in the selection process. In the matter of “Shankarsan Dash v Union of India” 1991 (3) SCC 47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that mere participation in the selection process or even placement on the select list would not create an indefeasible right for appointment in favour of the petitioners. It is the settled position of law that mere participation in the recruitment process or placement in the select list would not creat any indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner. In para 7 of Shankarshan Dash (supra), it is held that:- “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others, [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899.” 23. In the matter of “Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others” 2025 (2) SCC 1, it has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme 15 Court that no indefeasible right of appointment has accrued in favour of the candidates. Simultaneously, it goes without saying that the action of the State should not be arbitrary, and decisions taken not filling the vacancies must be bona fide. The conclusion of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash (supra) case is made in para 42 that:- “42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: (1) Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; (2) Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; (3) The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; (4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non- discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (5) Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; (6) Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 24. In the matter of “All India SC & ST Employees Association and Another v. A. Arthur and Others”, 2001 (6) SCC 380, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that:- “10. Merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court, 16 after referring to earlier cases in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India [1991 (3) SCC 47]. Para 7 of the said judgment reads thus :- It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220], Neelima Shangla vs. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268] or Jatendra Kumar vs. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122].” 25. In the present case, the validity of the merit list was extended up to 01-07- 2025. The petitioners are claiming to fill up the vacant posts from the merit list and to hold counselling, taking the candidates from the merit list. By the memo dated 24-04-2025, the Director of Public Instruction sought instructions from the State Government with respect to holding the 6 th round of counselling or not. The relevant part of the memo dated 24-04-2025 is reproduced below:- “1. सहायक शि(cid:8)्ቌक पद की सभी ्ቚमुख आवेदन ्ቦेशि(cid:24)यों में कटऑफ रैंक काफी निनचे आ चुका है। इन परिरቝኌ’(ति*यों में भ*+ ्ቚनि,या जारी रखा जाये अ(वा समा् निकया जाये। 2. भ*+ ्ቚनि,या जारी रखने की ቝኌ’(ति* में सहायक शि(cid:8)्ቌक पद के छठवें चर(cid:24) की सूची जारी करने की अनुमति* ्ቚदान निकया जाना ्ቚ’*ानिव* है। 3. अनुमति* निदये जाने की ቝኌ’(ति* में छटवें चर(cid:24) के लि4ये (cid:8)ा4ा आबंटन की ्ቚनि,या का अनुमोदन निकया जाना ्ቚ’*ानिव* है। ” 26. The 5th round of counselling was held by a decision taken by the State Government on 24-01-2025, and it has already been taken up. Now the 17 petitioners are claiming another round of counselling for the appointment of Assistant Teachers as the vacant posts are available under the subject advertisement. The proposal was sent by the Director of Public Instructions to the State Government for their approval. The State Government has not taken any decision till date as to whether they would continue with the recruitment process by another round of counselling or to conclude the process of recruitment under the advertisement dated 04-05-2023. Though there is no indefeasible right of the petitioner to be appointed on the post, but they have their legitimate expectations that the recruitment process would be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, and non-filling of the vacant posts should not be for without reason. 27. In the matter of “Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and Others v. South East Central Railway and Others”, 2019 (12) SCC 798, in para 6 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “6. Our country is governed by the rule of law. Arbitrariness is an anathema to the rule of law. When an employer invites applications for filling up a large number of posts, a large number of unemployed youth apply for the same. They spend time in filling the form and pay the application fees. Thereafter, they spend time to prepare for the examination. They spend time and money to travel to the place where written test is held. If they qualify the written test they have to again travel to appear for the interview and medical examination. etc. Those who are successful and declared to be passed have a reasonable expectation that they will be appointed. No doubt, as pointed out above, this is not a vested right. However, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When the employer is the State it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution. It cannot without any rhyme or reason decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts. The courts would normally not question the justification but the justification must be reasonable and should not be an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical exercise of discretion vested in the State. It is in the light of these principles that we need to examine the contentions of SECR.” 28. Since the validity of the merit list is over on 01-07-2025, and the matter was referred to the State Government for its consideration as to whether they should continue with the merit list by providing another round of counselling or not, this court does not find any reason to direct the State Government to 18 continue with the merit list for another round of counselling. It is for the State to take a decision on the issue. It goes without saying that the State’s decision must not be arbitrary and must be with objective reasoning. 29. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of “State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha”, AIR 2025 SC 1318, has held in para 54 and 55 that:- “54. Any decision taken not to appoint despite there being vacancies and a valid select list, obviously, is in the nature of a policy decision. It has to be borne in mind that securing public employment is the dream of many, who put their heart and soul to prepare for it. Nowadays, aspirants undertake rigorous study sessions as well as training modules to equip themselves, which also comes at a heavy cost. That apart, since every process of recruitment necessarily involves substantial expenses which are borne from the public exchequer and at the same time the aspirants for the posts (who, as per their own estimation, have performed sufficiently well and therefore stand a good chance of being appointed upon figuring in the select list) cherish fond hopes of a bright and secure future, the law is clear that the policy decision not to carry the process forward must be taken bona fide, there has to be justifiable reason if the process is abandoned mid-way, and such decision must not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or the whims of the decision maker. This acts as a check on the employer's power deciding against not making any appointment from the select list despite availability of vacancy/vacancies on the advertised/notified public post(s). A writ court may, upon reaching the requisite satisfaction, intervene in such manner and make such directions as the facts and circumstances warrant. We, therefore, do not find it acceptable that the aspirants, not having an indefeasible or vested right of appointment, do not also have the right to question any decision adverse to their interest affecting achievement of their goals to secure public employment. Whether, and to what extent, any relief should be granted, must depend on the facts of each case. 55. On facts and in the circumstances, however, the Respondents' legal rights were not infringed because of absence of grant of legitimacy to the select list by way of an approval from the Government; hence, the writ petition should not have been allowed.” 30. In the matter of “State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha”, 1974 (3) SCC 220, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :- “11. It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College(") that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the 15 persons who are in the list and the petitioners have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance the petition is clearly misconceived.” 19 31. In view of the above, the State Government is directed to take a decision on the communication dated 24-04-2025 made by the Director of Public Instructions, to the Secretary, School Education Department, Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur, keeping in view the order dated 24-02-2025, by which the validity of the merit list was extended up to 01-07-2025. All the exercise be done within two months from today. 32. Accordingly, all the above three writ petitions are finally disposed of. inder Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge