Dismissed

Archana v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Oct 2023WA/86/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a dismissal of a writ, the High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the appellant's challenge to her rejection as a teacher candidate. The Court held that she lacked the requisite subject qualification and could not establish a claim to parity based on the illegal appointments of others.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, and the order of the Single Judge is upheld.

Archana Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 86 of 2021

¶5

Archana W/o Shri Rahul Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o 12B Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Director Directorate of Public Instruction Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Joint Director Raipur Division, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Appellant	: Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate.
For State/Respondents	: Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri N.K.Chandravanshi, Judge

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

07/10/2023

¶17

1. The appellant/writ petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 844/2021. In the said writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner had sought quashing of the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the Joint Director, Education Department, Raipur, whereby her candidature for the post of Teacher (Social Science) was rejected on the ground that she was a graduate in Commerce.

¶18

¶19

2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant before the learned Single Judge is that during the course of undertaking her graduation in commerce, the appellant had studied Economics as one of the subjects and therefore, she meets the requisite eligibility criteria in terms of the advertisement as also in terms of the recruitment rules. Hence, the order dated 20.01.2021 was arbitrary and deserved to be set aside. According to the appellant, since the requirement for the post of Teacher (Social Science) was graduation with any of the subjects which are reflected in the ‘Subject Group’ column and the appellant having done a part of her studies in Economics, her candidature should not have been rejected.

¶20

3. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that the contention of the appellant did not had force for the reason that if the advertisement and the recruitment rules were taken into consideration, it would clearly reflect that there were specific subjects under which a candidate should have done his/her graduation, for recruitment to the post of Teacher (Social Science) and the subjects required for Bachelors degree were shown to be either History, Geography, Economics or Political Science as compulsory. The learned Single Judge further observed that the graduation marks sheet furnished by the appellant clearly reflected that except for the first two years of her degree course, it did not had the subject economics in the last year Therefore, it could not be be said that the graduation of the appellant was with economics as a compulsory subject as was required under the rules and the advertisement governing the field. The appellant could have participated for appointment to the post of Teacher (Commerce) as she was a commerce graduate. Accordingly, the writ petition stood dismissed.

¶21

4. Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had studied Economics as the subject in the first two years of her graduation and as such, she was eligible to be considered for the post of Teacher (Social Science). He further submits that various candidates whose

¶22

¶23

case was similar to that of the appellant have been given appointment but the appellant has been ousted which is arbitrary and illegal. When this Court had ordered to file select list of the candidates, the State has filed the appointment orders in order to hide his own mistakes. The State/respondents have been promoting the commerce graduate Teachers on the post of Teacher (Arts) but for selection and recruitment, different norms are being adopted.

¶24

5. On the other hand, Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents submits that though some of the ineligible candidates were granted appointment, however, later on when this fact came to the knowledge of the Department, their services have been terminated and if any wrong was committed by the Department, the appellant cannot take benefit of that.

¶25

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶26

7. On 18.08.2021, this Court, while directing this appeal to be listed after two weeks, observed that the appointment of the last candidate was appointed as Teacher (Social Science) shall remain subject to the final outcome of this case. The matter thereafter came up for hearing on various dates and on 06.01.2022, this Court directed the State/respondents to file the select list by way of an affidavit. Further, on 26.04.2023, vide covering memo, the appellant filed a list of candidates who were selected against the norms and on the said date, the learned State counsel was directed to verify the said list.

¶27

8. At paragraph 3 of the order of the learned Single Judge has dealt with the minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement wherein, in the subject Social Science, one of the subject should have been history, geography, economics or political science.

¶28

9. Fact of the matter is that though, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant that some of the ineligible candidates were given appointment,

¶29

¶30

the State has replied that the appointment of those candidates have been cancelled. The appellant admittedly did not possess the requisite qualification and as such, no ground for interference is made out. The appellant has not been able to establish that he fulfilled the requisite educational qualification as was required under the advertisement. On the contrary, the appellant has been trying to claim parity of the wrong committed by the State in favour of some ineligible candidates.

¶31

10. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality.

¶32

11. The appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted.

¶33

12. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.

¶34

Sd/Sd/- (N.K.Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

Amit

Archana v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Kumar Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Steal Auth. of India Ltd. Bhilai and Anr. Vs Shailendra Thakur and Ors.

Rustam Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Pandey Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission

Shashi Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lal Babu Singh And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.