Nafr High Court
Case Details
ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.14 18:01:42 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:32483-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 466 of 2025 1 - Indu Bhagat D/o Shri Baldev Bhagat Aged About 41 Years R/o Vil- lage Bojiya, Post Bojiya, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhat- tisgarh (Petitioner No.1) 2 - Samira Tigga D/o Shri Francis Tigga Aged About 43 Years R/o Bal- gangadhar Tilak Ward No. 10, Prasad Gali Indranagar, Post Fun- duldihari, Nawapara, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.2) 3 - Sanjeeta Tirkey D/o Shri Dharam Chandra Tirkey Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Fundurdihari, Bichpara, Ward No. 10, Post Fun- duldihari, Nawapara Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.3) 4 - Neha Singh D/o Shri Moti Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Gov- ernment Higher Secondary School Gandhinagar, Ward No. 7, Post Am- bikapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.4) 5 - Abha Tirkey D/o Shri Fuljens Tirkey Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Negitoli Tangargaon, Post Pongro, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.6) 6 - Jeny Sheetal Kuzur D/o Shri Jai Masih Kuzur Aged About 29 Years R/o Behind Central School Near Devdutt Colony, Post Raghavpuri, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.8) 7 - Newajo Ayam D/o Shri Brijlal Ayam Aged About 36 Years (Incorrectly Referred To As Son In The Writ Petition), R/o House No. 19, Ward No. 1, Village Mendhari, Post Karamdiha, Block Wadrafnagar, District Bal- rampur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.9) 2 8 - Swarn Lata Minj D/o Shri Camil Minj Aged About 33 Years R/o Soni Colony, House No. 6, Post Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.10)
Legal Reasoning
9 - Jagarnath Ram S/o Shri Budhan Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Vil- lage Dumarkhola, Post Daura, Tehsil Daura Kochli, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.11) 10 - Sangeeta W/o Shri Hemant Kumar Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Junwani, Post Lakhanpur, Tehsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattis- garh (Petitioner No.12) 11 - Krensiya Xalxo D/o Shri Paras Xalxo Aged About 34 Years R/o Vil- lage Ropakhar, Post Kamleshwarpur, Tehsil Narmadapur, District Sur- guja, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.13) 12 - Anima Minj D/o Shri Bhukhan Ram Minj Aged About 33 Years R/o Khadadoma, Post Sitapur, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.14) 13 - Mary Kusum Ekka D/o Shri Kunwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Sub- hash Nagar, Ambikapur, Post Ambikapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sur- guja, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.15) 14 - Sarita Paikra D/o Shri Jhari Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Khajuri, Post Pratappur, Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.16) 15 - Lalita Bhoi D/o Shri Makardhwaj Bhoi Aged About 32 Years R/o Vil- lage Pithora, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Peti- tioner No.17) 16 - Anamika Singh D/o Shri Shivbhajan Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Post Bishrampur, Tehsil And District Sura- jpur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.18) 17 - Hemant Kumar Khandey S/o Shri Kripa Ram Khandey Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 47, Near Ekka Villa, Ramkrishna Nagar, Mopka, Post Mopka, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.19) 18 - Rahul Chaturwedani S/o Shri Basant Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kendri, Post Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.20) 3 19 - Kaminee Naik D/o Shri Laljeet Singh Naik Aged About 29 Years R/o Tikrapara Road, Mannu Chowk, House No. 139, Post Juna Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.21) 20 - Hemant Kumar S/o Shri Hori Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Mirchid, Post Office Parsadih, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh Bi- laigarh, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.22) 21 - Lalaram Kewat S/o Shri Maheshwar Prasad Kewat Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dhamalpur, Post Hasuwa, Tehsil Tendra, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.23) 22 - Ratna D/o Shri Ashwini Aged About 29 Years R/o House No. 03, Khaprihapara, Village Jhipan, Post Rawan, District Baloda Bazar- Bhat- apara, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.25) versus ... Appellants 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of School Edu- cation, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1) 2 - Director Directorate of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Re- spondent No.2) 3 - Joint Director Education Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Sur- guja, Chhattisgarh Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattis- garh (Respondent No.3) 4 - Joint Director Education Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Jag- dalpur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.4) 5 - Anju Markam W/o Prakash Singh Markam Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Betari, Post Malhar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.5) 6 - Sarita D/o Somarsai Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Raisara, Post Chandramedha, Tehsil Odgi, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.7) 4 7 - Sangita D/o Bala Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 11, Vil- lage Sonuri, Post Sohaspur Lohara, Tehsil Sohaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No.24) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.07.2025 1 Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents. 2 I.A. No.01, an application for condonation of delay of 49 days has been filed by the appellants. 3 Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 5 By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief- 5 “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal, set aside the impugned judgement dated 10.03.2025passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 7701/2024 andgrant relief by issuing appropriate writ/order/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.” 6 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.7701/2024 (Indu Bhagat and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners has been dismissed. 7 Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge are that the appellants/writ petitioners had appeared in the Teacher Recruitment Examination-2023 which was conducted by CGVYAPAM and they are waited to undergo appointment process in the vacant post of teacher and lecturer 'E' & ' T' cadre through online counselling. The respondents initiated teacher recruitment process under Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (for short, “Rules of 2019”) and on 04.05.2023, the Department of Public Instructions (Department of School Education) published two separate detailed advertisement inviting online application from the eligible candidates for Direct 6 Recruitment of Teachers "E" & "T" Cadre and Lecturer "E" & "T" Cadre for the vacant posts of Divisional cadre in Surguja and Bastar Division, respectively. The number of vacant posts for Teacher E' cadre was 1113 and for the Teacher T' cadre was 4659 a total of 5772 posts of teachers. The total number of vacant posts for Lecturer cadre was 432. The appellants/writ petitioners have filled their online application forms as scheduled through the website of CGVYAPAM. On 10.06.2023, the CGVYAPAM has conducted the Teacher Recruitment Examination-2023 and on 15.06.2023, the CGVYAPAM has released the model answers of the said examination and invited claims or objections on the model answer of Assistant Teacher "E" & "T Cadre Recruitment Examination-2023. Thereafter, on 02.07.2023, the respondents published a combined merit list of the said examination and the respondents issued notification for process of appointment through online counselling Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV on the respective dates i.e., 13.07.2023, 08.08.2023, 15.09.2023 and 13.02.2024 on the vacant post of Lecturers for the subjects Mathematics, Physics and Commerce. The respondents have further issued notification for process of appointment through online counselling Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV, Phase V on the respective dates i.e., 06.09.2023, 12.08.2023, 21.09.2023, 06.02.2024, 05.03.2024 on the vacant post of Teachers, but neither all the vacant posts of Lecturer 'E' & ‘T’ cadre were filled even after four phases of online counselling was completed nor all 7 the vacant posts of Teacher 'E' & ‘T' cadre were filled even after five phases of online counselling was completed. Thereafter, the appellants/writ petitioners submitted representations to the respondents to conduct the process of appointment through online counselling (Phase VI) for the remaining vacant posts of Teacher 'E' & 'T' cadre. The respondents did not seem to continue the further process of appointment through online counselling for the remaining vacant posts advertised against Teachers Recruitment-2023 and as such, the appellants/writ petitioners submitted representations to various authorities of the State Government on different occasions. 8 Further, on 21.08.2024 the appellants/writ petitioners have submitted representations before the Chhattisgarh State commission for Scheduled Tribe, Raipur requesting the Chairman of the Commission to intervene in favour of them by way of seeking clarification from the respondents regarding the stopped process of appointment through online counselling for the remaining vacant posts of Teachers. The respondents replied to the Chhattisgarh State Commission for Scheduled Tribe, Raipur with reference to its Letter No. 2337, Dated 02.08.2024 Case No.86/2024 on 13.08.2024 and with reference to its Letter No. 2761 Dated 27.08.2024 Case No.86/2024 on 30.08.2024, admitting that out of total sanctioned post of 5772, the total number of unfilled vacant posts are 915 for Teacher cadre 'E' & ‘T' 8 and similarly out of total sanctioned post 432, the total number of unfilled vacant posts are 80 for Lecturer cadre 'E' & ‘T'. 9 It is further case of the appellants/writ petitioners that the respondents were aware of the fact the validity of panel/merit list is for only one year, yet they have intentionally delayed the recruitment process without exercising on any policy decision or reasonableness and let the validity expire depriving the selected candidates from getting appointed to the vacant post, which is illegal in the teeth of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the acts committed by the respondent authorities are nonetheless, but culpable exercise of power, as such, the advertisement issued for recruitment of Assistant Teacher dated 04.05.2023 was required to be quashed interalia with a prayer that the appellants/writ petitioners may be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher for their relevant subjects as they were selected for appointment, however, they could not be appointed due to the inaction on the part of respondent authorities. 10 Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the authorities, the appellants/writ petitioners have filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.7701/2024 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2025. 11 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been 9 filed by the appellants/writ petitioners. 12 Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that the Hon'ble Single Judge ought to have considered that the counselling process was initiated phase wise, wherein in each phase certain requisite number of candidates were called for participating in the counselling process. It is pointed out that the recruitment had to be done on the basis of the merit list, subject to the candidates having the requisite eligibility qualification. It has been contended that learned Single Judge has erred in not in not considering the fact that neither Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board nor the state government prepared a select list of eligible and in eligible candidate after the selection exam was held. In fact, the intention was to hold the counselling process till the posts advertised in the advertisement were finally exhausted and filled up. It has been further contended that the appellants/writ petitioners are all candidates in the merit list and they acquired a right to participate in the counselling process as long as the vacancies were subsisting, had the vacancies been exhausted in the five phases of counselling, the appellants/writ petitioners would not have had a right to claim participation in the counselling process for filling up the vacant posts, but since the vacancies were still left, and the list was not exhausted, the appellants/writ petitioners had a legitimate right to 10 claim that the candidates in the merit list like the appellants/writ petitioners be called for counselling process by respondent authorities. He has argued that the Hon'ble Single Judge ought to have considered that the authorities did not ever prescribe any cut-off marks to be eligible for selection. The respondents published the combined merit list and it was only on the basis of the said combined merit list that the appointments were to be made through the process of counselling. There was no cut-off marks published by the State in the said selection process. Had any cut off marks been published, all the candidates who secured the last cut off mark would have been called for counseling, whereas since the candidates were called in bunches / blocks, many of the candidates who secured the same marks as the last candidate who was called for counseling were not called for counseling, because they were to be called in the next round of counseling. It is nobody's case that the appellants/writ petitioners failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks because the state government did not ever prescribe any cut off marks for selection to the post of Teacher (E-cadre and T-cadre). The respondents- State did not file its reply and without the reply being filed by the State, the writ petition was dismissed based upon the incorrect submissions being made which was contrary to record. It has been lastly argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, as such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the 11 learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 13 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that after considering all the aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed impugned order dated 10.03.2025, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 14 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 15 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2025) 2 SCC 1, Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and others, (2020) 2 SCC 582, Commissioner of Police and Another v. Umesh Kumar, (2020) 10 SCC 448 and M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another reported in [2023] LiveLaw (SC) 320, has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “13. From perusal of the documents annexed
Decision
with the writ petitions, it is apparent that the petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre in their 12 respective subjects. On the basis of their requisite qualification as well as the marks obtained by them, they were selected for counselling, however, in the counselling, they could not get the cut-off marks as prescribed by the respondent authorities. The cut-off marks were time to time revised, however, instead of that, the petitioners were not able to be accommodated for the appointment of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre in their respective subjects till 5th round of counselling. 14. From perusal of the documents as well as the advertisement dated 04.05.2023, it is apparent that when the posts could not be fulfilled and were lying vacant for about more than three years, they were carried forward. x x x x x x 18. Now, reverting back to the present writ petitions, when they are examined in the light of aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is ample clear that even after selection for the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre, the petitioners who had been succeeded in selection process and whose documents were verified, did not confer a vested right to be appointed. Admittedly, the petitioners, who are aspirants for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers “E” and “T” cadre, have failed to 13 secure marks above the cut-off marks for the post of Assistant Teachers “E” and “T” cadre, therefore, it cannot be recorded to have acquired an indefeasible right to be appointed on the said posts merely on the ground that their names appear in the select merit list. The respondent authorities did their best in the process of selection as there were as many as 4 rounds of counselling, however, even in the 5 th round of counselling, the petitioners could not be appointed, as they could not cross the cut-off marks as prescribed the respondent authorities. The judgment cited by the petitioners is also relevant to the aspect that the person who gets placed in the select list gets no indefeasible right to be appointed even if the vacancies are available. The rider would be that the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to any selected candidate. However, in the present matters, there is a plausible reason for not appointing the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre as the petitioners could not compete the cut-off marks prescribed by the respondent authorities and in that view of the matter, even if posts are lying vacant, the petitioners cannot claim for appointment only on the basis of their selection as the selection is altogether different thing from appointed. 19. It is admitted position that when the posts 14 could not be fulfilled even after 5th round of counselling, the respondent authorities were having no way left except to carry forward those vacant posts for new advertisement which cannot be said to be faulted with. The respondent authorities/State has rightly issued an advertisement dated 04.05.2023 for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre while carrying forward the remaining seats which could not be fulfilled in the earlier round of recruitment process, which cannot be interfered with by this Court. x x x x x x 21. Looking into all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court do not consider present to be fit cases for interfering with the acts of respondent authorities/State, in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, the present petitions, being devoid of merits are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.” 16 Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also applying the principles laid down in the matters of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), Mohd. Rashid (supra), Umesh Kumar (supra) and Naveen Mathew Philip (supra), we are of the view 15 that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.7701 of 2024 (Indu Bhagat and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 17 In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu