Kumari Manorama Bharti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:29908

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1628 of 2014

¶6

Kumari Manorama Bharti D/o Ramesh Bharti Aged About 26 Years R/o M-117, Adarsha Nagar Kusumunda, P.S. Kusmunda, Civil And Revenue Distt. Korba C.G. , Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development,mahanadi Bhawan Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. The Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur Cg., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. The Commissioner, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. The Director, Directorate Urban Administration And Development Department Raipur, P.S. Civil Line Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5. Joint Director Urban Administration And Development, Throuhg The Director, Urban Administration And Development, Regional Office Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6. The Collector Janjgir Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶15

7. The Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Janjgir - Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

8. The District Education Officer, Janjgir - Champa , Distt. Janjgir - Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶17

9. The Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Counsel Champa Distt. Janjgir Champa C.G. , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner :	None even in second round.
For Respondents No. 1-6/ :	Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer.
State
For Respondent No. 8 & 9:	None even in second round.

¶20

2

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶22

Judgment On Board

¶23

08/08/2024

¶24

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶25

10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18/02/2014 (Annexure P- 1) passed by respondent No.9 in the interest of justice.

¶26

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to consider the case of petitioner and she may be permitted to continue in the present post i.e. Government Pre Middle Girls School Champa in the interest of justice.

¶27

10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Teacher (Municipal) (Mathematics) pursuant to the advertisement issued by Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council, Champa dated 06.06.2013. An appointment order was issued on 31.01.2014, in which, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 8. The petitioner belongs to the SC category and was selected under the SC (Open) category and was posted at Government Girls Middle School, Champa. The minimum criteria required for the post of Teacher (Municipal) as per the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagriya Nikay) Samwarg (Bharti tatha Sewa ki Sharte) Niyam, 2013 (Annexure R-3) is that a candidate should have:-

¶29

(i) Graduation from a recognized university,

¶30

(ii) B. Ed. and

¶31

(iii) TET certificate in accordance with the guidelines issued by NCTE would be eligible for appointment.

¶32

3

¶33

Qualifications with respect to TET were as follows:-

¶34

(i) a candidate who gets a minimum of 60% marks in the TET shall be eligible to teach students of Classes 1^st to 4^th .

¶35

(ii) a candidate who gets a minimum of 80% marks in the TET shall be eligible to teach students of Classes 6th to 8^th .

¶36

(iii) candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/ physically disabled candidates who get 50% marks in the TET shall be eligible.

¶37

Documents annexed to this petition would show that in the TET examination, the petitioner could not secure 50% marks and this fact was brought to the notice of the employer after the publication of the select list, therefore, vide order dated 18.02.2014, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled. It is also stated in the petition that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and show-cause notice was never served upon her, therefore the termination order is bad in law.

¶38

3. Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that according to The Rules, 2013, candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC categories and physically disabled persons who acquired 50% marks in the TET examination were eligible for the said post but the petitioner obtained lesser marks, therefore, her selection/appointment was cancelled. She stated that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

4. I have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on the record.

¶40

5. Schedule 3 appended to The Rules, 2013 deals with the minimum qualification for the post of Teacher (Municipal). It says that a candidate should have acquired (i) graduation from a recognized university; (ii)

¶41

4

¶42

B.Ed. Certificate along with 50% marks in TET issued by C.G. Professional Examination Board or a central agency.

¶43

6. In the present case, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Teacher (Municipal) (Mathematics) and was selected under the SC (Open) category. Later on, when the fact that the petitioner had secured lesser marks in TET was revealed, the decision was taken by the respondent authorities to cancel the selection/appointment of the petitioner on the said post. The mark sheet of TET would show that the petitioner secured 42.568 marks out of 150 in the upper primary category which is less than 50%, thus, her candidature was cancelled.

¶44

7. From the return filed by the State, it is also apparent that qualifications i.e. B.Ed. and TET certificates were also not disclosed in the application form. Evidently, the petitioner did not have the minimum required qualification for appointment to the post of Teacher (Municipal) (Mathematics), therefore, the authority concerned has rightly cancelled her selection/appointment.

¶45

8. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition; consequently, the same is liable to and is hereby dismissed . No costs.

¶46

Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶47

Ajinkya

Kumari Manorama Bharti v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Manorama Bharti v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Singh Baghel And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dayashankar Mahobia Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shiv Pratap Singh And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Dhurw Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ashish Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt.urvashi Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.