1

2025:CGHC:11905

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 7701 of 2024

1 - Indu Bhagat D/o Baldev Bhagat Aged About 41 Years R/o Village

Bojiya Post Bojiya, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

496665.

2 - Samira Tigga D/o Francis Tigga Aged About 43 Years R/o

Balgangadhar Tilak Ward No. 10, Parsad Gali Indranagar, Post

Funduldihari Nawapara, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja,

Chhattisgarh. 497001.

3 - Sanjeeta Tirkey D/o Dharam Chand Tirkey, Aged About 37 Years

R/o Village Fundurdihari, Bichpara, Ward No. 10, Post Fundurdihari

Nawapara, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 497001.

4 - Neha Singh D/o Moti Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Govt. Hr.

Sec. School Gandhinagar, Ward No. 07, Post Ambikapur, Tehsil

Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, 497001

5 - Anju Markam W/o Prakash Singh Markam, Aged About 29 Years

R/o Village Betari, Post Malhar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh. 495551.

6 - Abha Tirkey D/o Fuljens Tirkey, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village

Negitoli Tangargaon, Post Pongro, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur,

Chhattisgarh. 496223

7 - Sarita D/o Somarsai Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Raisara, Post

Chandramedha, Tehsil Odgi, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 497235.

8 - Jeny Sheetal Kuzur, D/o Jai Masih Kuzur, Aged About 29 Years R/o

Behind Central School Near Devdutt Colony, Post Raghavpuri, Tahsil

Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Pincode – 497001.

2

9 - Newajo Ayam S/o Brijlal Ayam, Aged About 36 Years R/o House No.

19, Ward No. 01, Village Mendhari, Post Karamdiha, Block

Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 497225.

10 - Swarn Lata Minj D/o Camil Minj, Aged About 33 Years R/o Soni

Colony, House No. 06, Post. Ambikapur, District Surguja, Pin 497001.

11 - Jagarnath Ram S/o Budhan Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village

Dumarkhola, Post Daura, Tehsil Daura Kochli, District Balrampur

Ramanujganj, Pin 497118.

12 - Sangeeta W/o Hemant Kumar Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o

Village Judwani, Post Lakhnpur, Tehsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Pin

497116.

13 - Krensiya Xalxo D/o Paras Xalxo, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village

Ropakhar, Post Kamleshwarpur, Tehsil Narmadapur, District Surguja,

Pin 497111.

14 - Anima Minj D/o Bhukhan Ram Minj, Aged About 33 Years R/o

Khadadorna, Post Sitapur, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Pin 497111.

15 - Mary Kusum Ekka D/o Kunwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Subhash

Nagar, Ambikapur, Post Ambikapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja,

Pin 497001.

16 - Sarita Paikra D/o Jhari Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village

Khajuri, Post Pratappur, Tehsil Pratappur, District Surajpur,

Chhattisgarh Pin 497223

17 - Lalita Bhoi D/o Makardhwaj Bhoi, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village

Pithora, Post Pithora, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund,

Chhattisgarh, Pin 493551.

18 - Anamika Singh D/o Shivbhajan Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o

Village Shivnandanpur, Post Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District

Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Pin 497226.

19 - Hemant Kumar Khandey S/o Kripa Ram Khandey Aged About 28

Years R/o Ward No. 47, Near Ekka Villa Ramkrishna Nagar, Mopka,

Post Mopka, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Pin

495006.

3

20 - Rahul Chaturwedani S/o Basant Kumar, Aged About 27 Years R/o

Village Kendri, Post Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

21 - Kaminee Naik D/o Laljeet Singh Naik, Aged About 29 Years R/o

Tikrapara Road Mannu Chowk, House No. 139, Post Juna Bilaspur,

Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Pin 495001.

22 - Hemant Kumar S/o Hori Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village

Mirchid, Post Office Parsadih, Tehsil Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh

Bilaigarh. Pin Code 493338

23 - Lalaram Kewat S/o Maheshwar Prasad Kewat Aged About 29

Years R/o Village Dhamalpur, Post Hasuwa, Tehsil Tundra, District

Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Pin 493344

24 - Sangita, D/o Bala Ram, Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 11,

Village Sonuri, Post Sohaspur Lohara, Tehsil Sohaspur Lohara, District

Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Pin 491996.

25 - Ratna D/o Ashwani Aged About 29 Years R/o H. No. 03

Khaprihapara, Village Jhipan, Post Rawan, District Baloda Bazaar-

Bhatapara, Pin Code 493196.

--- Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School

Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block

C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Joint Director, Education Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District

Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Joint Director, Education Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District

Jagadapur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

WPS No. 7708 of 2024

4

1 - Shakuntala Netam D/o Chandra Prakash Netam Aged About 29

Years R/o Village Nirachhindali, Post Jamgaon, Tehsil Keshkal , District

Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. 494331

2 - Junas Ekka S/o Khurnu Ekka Aged About 41 Years R/o Village

Dhelsara, Post Sitapur, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

497111

3 - Pranay Kumar Kujur S/o Albert Kujur Aged About 32 Years R/o

Namnakala Ambikapur, Post Ambikapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, District

Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Pin 497001

4 - Subhadra Kujur D/o Santosh Kujur Aged About 33 Years R/o Shanti

Bhawan, Patpariya, Ward No. 11, House No. 166, Post Ambikapur,

Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 497001

5 - Atul Toppo S/o Anthres Toppo Aged About 28 Years R/o Village

Ginabahar, Post Ginabahar, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, 496225,

Chhattisgarh.

6 - Aradhna Singh D/o Anil Kumar Singh Aged About 33 Years Village

Gaina, Post Keshari, Tahsil Raghunath Nagar, District Balrampur

497255, Chhattisgarh.

7 - Poonam Singh W/o Vidyacharan Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o

Village, Post, Tehsil - Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

497225

8 - Vishal Kerketta S/o Rambiruch Kerketta Aged About 25 Years R/o

House No. 23, Village Banspara, Kantiprakashpur, Post, Tehsil-

Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 497001

9 - Nirmala Toppo D/o Alvinus Toppo Aged About 37 Years R/o Village

Jatga, Post Jatga, Tehsil Podi Uproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

495445

10 - Puja Singh W/o Pramod Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village

Jhirmitti, Post Udaipur, Tehsil Udaipur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh,

497117

11 - Jacinta D/o Theman Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Rajapur

Bhainsakhar, Post Guturma, Tehsil Mainpat, District Sarguja,

Chhattisgarh. 497114

5

12 - Sadhana Minj D/o Petrus Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Aonrijor,

Post Harradand, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 496225

13 - Asha Kumari W/o Pritpal Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Village

Ghunchapur, Post Darrabhatha, Tehsil Podi Uprora, District Korba,

Chhattisgarh. 495445

14 - Namita Kanwar W/o Leeladher Singh Kanwar Aged About 35 Years

R/o Village Kamal Sagar, Mohalla Gidhouri, Post Dadarkala, Tehsil

Barpali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 495674

15 - Auxiliya Panna D/o Airus Panna Aged About 32 Years R/o Village

Bhagattoli, Post Jumaikela, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur,

Chhattisgarh. 496223

16 - Madhu Netam D/o B.R. Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o Ayodhya

Dham, Ward No. 1 Kabirdham, Post Sohaspur Lohara, Tehsil Sohaspur

Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. Pin 491995

17 - Namit Kumar Diwan S/o Tikam Singh Diwan Aged About 24 Years

R/o Village Jhitki, Post Narra, Tehsil Komakhan, District Mahasamund,

Chhattisgarh. 493449

18 - Pratima D/o Munna Lal Shandilya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village

Mode, Post Sankhra, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Pin 493778

19 - Leena Darro D/o Sampat Singh Darro Aged About 26 Years R/o

Village Kumhar Para, Ward No. 13, Post, Tehsil Narayanpur, District

Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 494661

---Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School

Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block

C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Joint Director Education Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District

Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

6

4 - Joint Director, Education Bastar Division Jagdalpur, District

Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

WPS No. 7711 of 2024

1 - Smriti Mukta Xaxa D/o Awatar Xaxa Aged About 31 Years R/o

Village Shantinagar, Basen, Post Musgutri, Tehsil Bagicha, District

Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, 496224

2 - Pinkee Ekka D/o Inderpal Ekka Aged About 30 Years R/o Village

Patnakot, Post Patna, Tehsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur

Chhattisgarh 497229

3 - Meena Tirkey D/o Naya Ram Tirkey Aged About 33 Years R/o

Village Sureshpur, Post Sureshpur, Tehsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur

(Chhattisgarh) 496118

4 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Hiraman Lal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village

Kirgahatola, Post Shikari Mahaka, Tehsil Chhuriya, District

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 491558

5 - Singluram Kowachi S/o Champuram Kowachi Aged About 29 Years

R/o Village Hadfad, Post Chikhli, Tehsil Durgukondal, District Kanker

(Chhattisgarh) Pin 494771

6 - Prakash Chandra Kashyap S/o Sant Kumar Kashyap Aged About 29

Years R/o Village R.E.S. Colony, Post Kanker, Tehsil Kanker, District

Kanker (Chhattisgarh) 494334

7 - Khemlata Nayak D/o Dular Ram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village

And Post Hatkarra, Tehsil Bhanupratappur District Kanker

(Chhattisgarh) 494670

8 - Savita Netam D/o Nehrulal Netam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village

Karagaon, Post Bhanpuri, Tehsil Pharasgaon, District Kondagaon,

Chhattisgarh 494229

9 - Sandhya D/o Chhedi Lal Aged About 29 Years R/o H.N. 226 Block

Colony Pharasgaon Post Pharasgaon District Kondagaon

(Chhattisgarh) 494228

7

10 - Ishwari Netam W/o Girvar Singh Netam Aged About 30 Years R/o

Village Airmur, Post Airmur Tehsil Lohandiguda, District Bastar

(Chhattisgarh) 494010

11 - Anju Nilam Kindo D/o Habil Kindo Aged About 36 Years R/o Village

Pongro, Post Pongro, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)

496223

12 - Rajani Netam D/o Shyamlal Netam Aged About 24 Years R/o

Village Saraipali, Post Lamkeni, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund

(Chhattisgarh) 493558

13 - Hemlata Pareshwar D/o Vasudev Pareshwar Aged About 25 Years

R/o Village Jatakanhar, Post Pajhrapali, Tehsil Saraipali, District

Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 493558

14 - Deepak Kumar S/o Krishna Kumar Aged About 28 Years R/o

House No.-12, Ward No.-01 Village Bhanwar, Post Binjhara, Tehsil

Pondi Uproda, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 495445

15 - Ajay Kumar S/o Vishram Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o House

No.- 57, Ward No.-13, Village Dongartarai, Post Binjhara, Tehsil Pondi

Uproda, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 495445

16 - Jagat Ram Binjhwar S/o Rajaram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village

And Post Chicholi, Tehsil, Kartala, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 495671

17 - Bhupendra Kumar S/o Mani Ram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village

Masulkasa, Post Godalwahi, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

491661

18 - Ghanshyam S/o Heera Lal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And

Post Kirgi, Tehsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

491661

19 - Dhananjay Chandravanshi S/o Vedram Chandravanshi Aged About

35 Years R/o Village Chilguda, Post Gandai, Tehsil Chhuikhadan,

District Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (Chhattisgarh) 491888

20 - Asha Sidar W/o Om Prakash Sidar Aged About 36 Years R/o

Village And Post Baghoud, Tehsil Dabhara, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh)

495692

8

21 - Anjelina Kispotta D/o Willam Kispotta Aged About 35 Years R/o

Village Kharwaatoli, Post Keraadih, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur

(Chhattisgarh) 496225

---Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School

Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block

C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3 - Joint Director Education Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District

Surguja Chhattisgarh

4 - Joint Director Education Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District

Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh)

--- Respondents

WPS No. 7710 of 2024

1 - Kapil Dev S/o Sham Kumar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Nakna,

Post Bataikela, Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja, Pin 497101 (C.G.).

2 - Parvati Komare D/o Shivnath Singh Komare Aged About 27 Years

R/o Village Ategarda, Post Dighwadhi, Tehsil Khadhgaon, District

Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki (C.G.) Pin 491229.

3 - Balram S/o Malikram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Navalpur,

Post Gadamor, Tehsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, (C.G.) Pin 491337

4 - Anamika Singh D/o Shivbhajan Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o

Village Shivnandanpur, Post Bishrampur, Tehsil Surajpur, District

Surajpur, (C.G.) Pin 497226.

5 - Gulab Chand Kothari S/o Dayaram Kothari Aged About 34 Years

R/o Village Dumardih, Post Patora, Tehsil Durg, District Durg, (C.G.)

Pin 491107.

9

6 - Kaushilya Thakur D/o Agyaram Thakur, Aged About 27 Years R/o

Village Dumarpali, Post Dumarpali, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) Pin

493551.

7 - Durgeshwari D/o Harishchandra, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village

Bharda, Post Dhadaha, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, (C.G.) Pin

493663.

---Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School

Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block

C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgrh.

3 - Joint Director, Education Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District

Surguja, C.G.

4 - Joint Director, Education Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District

Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents

WPS No. 7706 of 2024

1 - Kapil Kumar Dhruw S/o Manrakhan Lal, Aged About 33 Years R/o

Village-Gobari, Post Manikchauri, Tehsil-Masturi, District- Bilaspur

(C.G.) 495551.

2 - Kanhaiya Lal Arya S/o Paras Ram Arya, Aged About 34 Years R/o

Village-Aasram Ward 11, Narayanpur, Post Narayanpur, Tehsil

Narayanpur, District-Narayanpur (C.G.) Pin 494661.

3 - Amit Lal Mandavi S/o Sonau Ram Mandavi, Aged About 34 Years

R/o Village And Post- Dhanelikanhar, Tehsil And District- Kanker (C.G.)

494670.

4 - Ganesh Ram S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village-

Bargaon, Post-Hatkondal, Tehsil Durgukondal, District-Kanker (C.G.)

494635.

10

5 - Jyoti Thakur D/o O.R. Thakur, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village-

Kanjeli, Post-Singhola, Tehsil Dondi, District-Balod (C.G.) 491226.

6 - Lakhmu Ram S/o Sukhram, Aged About 33 Years R/o House No.

144, Farsa Padar Para, Village-Palari, Post-Palari, Tehsil- Kondagaon,

District-Kondagaon (C.G.) Pin 494226.

7 - Manisha D/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village-

Tiwarta, Post- Tiwarta, Tehsil- Hardibajar, District- Korba (C.G.), Pin

495449.

8 - Ileshwari D/o Johan Singh, Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 28,

Village Pendra, Post-Pendra, Tehsil-Rajim, District-Gariyaband (C.G.)

Pin 493992.

9 - Niku D/o Kisun, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village-Bhendi, Post-

Suregaon, Tehsil- Dondilohara, District-Balod (C.G.) Pin 491225.

10 - Ramgovind Singh Kanwar S/o Lakhan Singh Kanwar, Aged About

31 Years R/o Village-Gidhouri, Post- Dadarkala, Tehsil- Kartala, District-

Korba (C.G.) Pin 495674.

11 - Revendra Kumar S/o Narottam Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o

Village-Siwani, Post- Dondi Lohara, District-Balod (C.G.), Pin 491771.

12 - Rishi Kumar S/o Radheshyam Sai, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward

No. 9, Chote Nahar, Village-Ranigaon, Post-Lormi, District-Mungeli

(C.G.) Pin 495115.

13 - Mukesh Rawte S/o Savat Ram, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village-

Nadiya, Post-Khujji, Tahsil- Dongargaon, District-Rajnandgaon, Pin

491661 (C.G.)

14 - Chanchal Dhanpal D/o Homendra Dhanpal, Aged About 24 Years

R/o Village-Arjuni, Post-Arjuni, Tehsil- Dongargaon, District-

Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Pin 491441.

15 - Bindeshwari Rawte D/o Ful Singh Rawte, Aged About 26 Years R/o

House No. 276, Ward No. 16, Village-Khadgaon, Post-Khadgaon,

Tehsil-Khadgaon, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.), Pin

491229.

16 - Sindu Rani Kujur D/o Abraham Kujur, Aged About 44 Years R/o

Datt Township, Flat No. 410, F Block, District-Jabalpur (M.P.) 482021.

11

17 - Bhumisuta Bhoi D/o Ghanshyam Bhoi, Aged About 30 Years R/o

Village-Anjadi, Government Primary School, Post Ghodagaw, Tehsil-

Pakhanjore, District-Kanker (C.G.) Pin 494776.

18 - Anil Sai S/o Prahlad Sai, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village-

Foskotoli, Post-Deori, Tehsil- Kansabel, District-Jashpur (C.G.) Pin

496223.

19 - Yashwant Kumar S/o Sushil Kumar, Aged About 32 Years R/o

Village-Mandeep, Post- Nagarada, Tahsil-Sonakhan, District-

Balodabazar (C.G.) Pin 492112.

20 - Kalyani Markam D/o Nanjat Ram Markam, Aged About 35 Years

R/o Village-Kavra, Post Bavai, Tehsil-Makdi, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

494226

---Petitioners

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School

Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,

District-Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Block

C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Joint Director, Education, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District-

Surguja (C.G.)

4 - Joint Director, Education, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District-

Jagdalpur (C.G.)

--- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners :Dr. Jitendra Kishor Mehta assisted by

Mr. Anand Kumar Kujur, Advocates

For Respondents-State:Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate

12

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

10.03.2025

1.Heard Dr. Jitendra Kishor Mehta assisted by Mr. Anand Kumar

Kujur, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. Ajit

Singh, Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents.

2.Since the common issue is involved in all the writ petitions, as

such, they are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of

by this common order.

3.The petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court with a prayer

that the respondent authorities be directed to conclude the Direct

Recruitment of Teachers "E" & "T" Cadre 2023 for the vacant

posts of Divisional Cadre in Surguja and Bastar Division. After

appearing in the Teacher Recruitment Examination-2023

conducted by Chhattisgarh Vyawsayik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur

(herein called as 'CGVYAPAM) on behalf of Directorate of Public

Instructions (Department of School Education), the petitioners

who are in merit list are waiting to undergo appointment process

in the vacant post of teacher and lecturer 'E' & T' cadre through

online counselling. The respondents have not yet notified in public

domain that they have stopped or are going to continue the

process of appointment through online counselling for the

remaining vacant posts of Teachers, but till date, the respondents

have not completed the process of recruitment, for which the

respondents had published advertisement for the direct

13

recruitment of Teachers and Lecturers "E" & "T" Cadre for the

vacant posts of Divisional cadre in Surguja and Bastar Division.

4.In all the writ petitions, almost same reliefs have been claimed by

the petitioners. For the sake of brevity, the reliefs sought by the

petitioners in WPS No.7701/2024 (Indu Bhagat and other vs.

State of Chhattisgarh and others) has been taken into

consideration which are quoted hereinbelow:-

“(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the entire records

pertaining to the case.

(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue appropriate

writs/orders/direction to the respondent

authorities to conclude the Direct

Recruitment of Teachers "E" & "T" Cadre

2023 for the vacant posts of Divisional Cadre

in Surguja and Bastar Division.

(iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue appropriate writs/orders/

direction to the respondents not to create

new vacancy for the post of teachers till the

present Teacher Recruitment 2023 is

concluded.

(iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issue appropriate writs/orders/

14

direction to consider the representations

preferred by the petitioners.

(v) That any other relief/order which may be

deem fit and just in the facts and

circumstances of the case may kindly be

granted.”

5.Brief facts necessary for disposal of all these writ petitions are that

the 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 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

petitioner have filled their online application forms as scheduled

through the website of CGVYAPAM. On 10.06.2023, the

15

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.

6.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.

7.Thereafter, 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 the vacant posts of Teacher 'E'

& ‘T' cadre were filled even after five phases of online counselling

was completed. Thereafter, the 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

16

appointment through online counselling for the remaining vacant

posts advertised against Teachers Recruitment-2023 and as such,

the petitioners submitted representations to various authorities of

the State Government on different occasions.

8.Further, on 21.08.2024 the petitioners have submitted

representations before the Chhattisgarh State commission for

Scheduled Tribe, Raipur requesting the Chairman of the

Commission to intervene in favour of the petitioners 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' 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 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

17

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 is required to

be quashed interalia with a prayer that the 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.Learned counsel for the respective petitioners in all the writ

petitions would submit that when the petitioners were selected

and their documents were verified then the petitioners should

have been appointed by the respondent authorities, however,

inspite of appointing petitioners on their respective subjects even

after their selection, the respondent authorities have issued a

fresh advertisement dated 04.05.2023, which is per se illegal and

contrary to the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and requires to be quashed. It is further argued

that the petitioners are waiting to undergo appointment process in

the vacant post of teacher and lecturer 'E' & 'T' cadre through

online counselling and till date, the respondents have not

completed the process of Teacher Recruitment Examination-2023

for which the respondents had published advertisement for the

direct recruitment of Teachers and Lecturers "E" & "T" Cadre for

the vacant posts of Divisional cadre in Surguja and Bastar

18

Division. It has been contended that name of the petitioners are in

the merit list and are eligible candidates to be considered for the

selection procedures conducted by the respondents who have

duly qualified with open competitive written exams to appear in

appointment process through online counselling process. It has

been further contended that the respondents were aware of the

fact that 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. It has been submitted that sufficient

time period has elapsed and till date no significant action has

been initiated by the respondents, as such, the writ petitions be

allowed and the respondent authorities be directed to call the

petitioners for fresh counselling and to pass appropriate orders in

respect of their appointment for the post of Assistant Teacher in

their respective subjects.

11.On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes

the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and

submits that the petitioners could not be selected and called for

counselling as they could not compete the cut-off marks which

have been prescribed for selection to the post of Assistant

Teachers in various subjects. Only for the sake of petitioners, who

could not get qualified, counselling cannot be done again and

again. He further submits that even after 5

th

round of counselling,

19

the petitioners could not qualify as they could not succeed in

getting cut-off marks as prescribed by the respondent authorities

and therefore, they could not be selected. It has been contended

that the selection would not give a right to the petitioners to be

appointed on the respective posts unless and until they qualify the

cut-off marks as prescribed in the counselling. When the posts

were lying vacant and the aspirants could not compete the cut-off

marks as prescribed by the respondent authorities, the authorities

have duly advertised and carry forwarded the same. As such, the

petitioners were not able to make out a case for their appointment

through counselling, which has been closed and cannot be

opened again and again. It is finally contended that the petitioners

are miserably failed to make out a case for reliefs sought by them,

as such, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in

threshold.

12.I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the

documents appended with all the writ petitions.

13.From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petitions, it

is apparent that the petitioners have applied for the post of

Assistant Teacher “E” and “T” cadre in their 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

20

be accommodated for the appointment of Assistant Teacher “E”

and “T” cadre in their respective subjects till 5

th

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. At this juncture, it would be appropriate

to consider the judgments relied upon by the respective counsels.

15.Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej

Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and

others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1, wherein it has been held in

paras 25, 64, 65.1, 65.2 & 65.6 which read as under:-

“25. Candidates participating in a recruitment

process have legitimate expectation that the

process of selection will be fair and non-

arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate

expectation in public law is founded on the

principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in

government dealings with individuals. It

recognises that a public authority's promise

or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate

expectation. This doctrine is premised on the

notion that public authorities, while

performing their public duties, ought to

21

honour their promises or past practices. The

legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if

it is rooted in law, custom, or established

procedure.

64. Thus, in light of the decision in

Shankarsan Dash, a candidate placed in the

select list gets no indefeasible right to be

appointed even If vacancies are available.

Similar was the view taken by this Court in

Subash Chander Marwaha where against 15

vacancies only top 7 from the select list were

appointed. But there is a caveat. The State

or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny

appointment to a selected candidate.

Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State's

action in respect of denying appointment to a

selected candidate, the burden is on the

State to justify its decision for not making

appointment from the select list.

65.1.Recruitment process commences from

the issuance of the advertisement calling for

applications and ends with filling up of

vacancies;

65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the

select list, notified at the commencement of

22

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;

65.6. 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.”

16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rashid v.

Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and others reported in

(2020) 2 SCC 582, wherein it has been held in paras 13 & 14,

which read as under:-

“13. The appellants who are aspirants for

direct recruitment have no right for

appointment merely because at one point of

23

time the vacancies were advertised. The

candidates such as the appellants cannot

claim any right of appointment merely for the

reason that they responded to an

advertisement published on 12-9-2013. Even

after completion of the selection process, the

candidates even on the merit list do not have

any vested right to seek appointment only for

the reason that their names appear on the

merit list. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of

India, a Constitution Bench of this Court held

that a candidate seeking appointment to a

civil post cannot be regarded to have

acquired an indefeasible right to appointment

in such post merely because of the

appearance of his name in the merit list. This

Court held as under: (SCC pp. 50-51, para 7)

‘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

24

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. Subash Chander

Marwaha: Neelima Shangla v. State of

Haryana or Jatinder Kumar v. State of

Punjab.’

14. Since the selection process has not been

completed and keeping in view the mandate

of the statutory rules, we find that the

appellants have no right to dispute the action

25

of the municipal bodies to fill up the posts

either by way of promotion or by deputation

as such posts are being filled up in terms of

mandate of the Rules. It is always open to the

municipal bodies to fill up the vacant posts by

way of direct recruitment after the posts by

way of promotion and/or deputation quota are

not filled up either on the basis of recruitment

process already initiated or to be initiated

afresh.”

17.Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Commissioner of Police and Another v. Umesh Kumar

reported in (2020) 10 SCC 448, wherein vide paras 19, 20, 23, it

has been held as under:-

“19.The real issue, however, is whether the

respondents were entitled to a writ of

mandamus. This would depend on whether

they have a vested right of appointment.

Clearly the answer to this must be in the

negative. In Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh,

this Court held that the mere inclusion of

candidates in a selection list does not confer

upon them a vested right to appointment.

The Court held: (SCC p. 26, para 4)

"4.... the High Court committed an error in

26

proceeding on the basis that the

respondent had got a vested right for

appointment and that could not have been

taken away by the subsequent change in

the policy. It is settled law that mere

inclusion of name of a candidate in the

select list does not confer on such

candidate any vested right to get an order

of appointment. This position is made clear

in para 7 of the Constitution Bench

judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash

v. Union of India 10 which reads: (SCC pp.

50-51)

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

27

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. Subash Chander

Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of

Haryana or Jatinder Kumar v. State of

Punjab 13. (emphasis in original)

20. In the present case, after the name of the

respondents appeared in the results declared

on 17-7-2015, the process of recruitment

was put in abeyance since the results were

challenged before the Tribunal. The process

of revising the results during the course of

the recruitment was necessitated to align it in

accordance with law. An Expert Committee

28

was specifically appointed following the

institution of proceedings before the Tribunal.

The report of the Expert Committee

established errors in the answer-key, and

thereafter a conscious decision was taken,

after evaluating the report, to revise the

results on 1-2-2016. In the fresh list which

was drawn up, both the respondents have

admittedly failed to fulfil the cut-off for the

OBC category to which they belong. As the

learned ASG submitted before the Court, as

many as 228 candidates are ranked above

Umesh Kumar on merit while 265 candidates

stand above Satyendra Singh. The

submission of Mr Khurshid that these are the

only two candidates before this Court would

not entitle them to a direction contrary to law

since they had no vested right to

appointment.

23. For the above reasons, we are of the

view that the judgments delivered by the

Delhi High Court on 6-12-2018 in Umesh

Kumar v. States and on 19-12-2018 in

Satyendra Singh v. States do not comport

with law. The High Court has been manifestly

29

in error in issuing a mandamus to the

appellants to appoint the respondents on the

post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police.

The direction was clearly contrary to law. The

respondents have participated in the

selection process and upon the declaration

of the revised result, it has emerged before

the Court that they have failed to obtain

marks above the cut-off for the OBC

category to which they belong.”

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

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

30

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 could not be fulfilled

even after 5

th

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.

20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue

regarding exercise of interference under extraordinary jurisdiction

31

has held in the matter of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v.

Naveen Mathew Philip and another reported in [2023] LiveLaw

(SC) 320, which reads as under:-

“18. While doing so, we are conscious of the

fact that the powers conferred under Article

226 of the Constitution of India are rather

wide but are required to be exercised only in

extraordinary circumstances in matters

pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory

scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial

matters involving a lender and a borrower,

when the legislature has provided for a

specific mechanism for appropriate

redressal.”

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.

23.There shall be no order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Yogesh