Dismissed

Deepti Namdeo and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2024WPS/2840/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a 2011 recruitment advertisement and subsequent appointments for teachers, arguing violation of RTE Act and Articles 14, 16, 21 due to lack of competitive exam. The court dismissed the petition, noting the appointments were made in accordance with rules after a 13-year lapse. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Invocation of writ to quash advertisement dated 14.05.2011 and any other relief sought was dismissed.

Deepti Namdeo and Others Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 2840 of 2011

¶5

1. Deepti Namdeo, daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar Namdeo, aged about 23 years, resident of Near Kali Mandir, Purani Basti, Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2. Riyaj Siddequi, son of Shri Habibullah, aged about 32 years, resident of Dharma Hospital Road, Bajrang Chowk, Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

3. Santosh Kumar Gupta, son of Shri Mahabir Prasad Gupta, aged about 30 years, resident of Village Lohari, Post Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

4. Chandrabhan Patel, son of Shri Madhusudan Patel, aged about 23 years, resident of Village Darabhata, Post Madhpar, Thana Seepat, through Jayram Nagar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

5. Dewananad Patel, son of Shri Thakur Ram Patel, aged about 21 years, resident of Pantarapali, Post Jhala, Thana and Tehsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

6. Ramesh Kumar Bhardwaj, son of Shri Bhakhla Ram Bhardwaj, aged about 24 years, resident of Village Jaitpur, Post Malhar, Thana Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan,Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Janjgir-Champa, Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

3. National Council for Teacher Education, through it's Secretary, Wing- II, Hans Bhawan, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002.

¶16

---- Respondents

¶17

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioners :	Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate along with
	Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate
For State :	Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

-2-

Order on Board

10.07.2024

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶24

“(10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned advertisement dated 14.05.2011 (ANNEXURE P-1) issued by respondent No. 2.

¶25

(10.2) Any other relief / relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioners.”

¶26

Mr. Amrito Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that if the applications received by the respondent authorities/employer are less than the number of vacancies advertised, the candidates can be short-listed based on marks secured by them in Class 12th, Graduation, and B.Ed/D.Ed and if the number of applications is more than vacancies, there should be a competitive examination/written examination as per the Rules. He further submitted that in the present case, the employer directly adopted a short route and short-listed the candidates based on marks secured by them. He also submitted that the method adopted by the respondent authorities was erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Das further stated that the candidates cannot be appointed contrary to the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, RTE Act, 2009 ), particularly Section 23 which says that the qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers shall be laid down by an academic authority authorized by the Central Government i.e. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). He also stated that as per NCTE, the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualified candidates will be eligible for the post of Teacher.

¶27

-3-

¶28

1. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioners are aspirants, they did not participate in the examination and after issuance of the advertisement, they challenged the recruitment process. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the advertisement was issued in the year 2011 and immediately thereafter, appointment orders were also issued to the eligible candidates. He also submitted that after a lapse of 13 years, no fruitful purpose would be served in setting aside the recruitment process. He further contended that the amendment was made after serial number 6 of the Note of Schedule-II, which says as under:-

¶29

“7. Preference shall be made to obtained marks in educational qualification i.e. 10^th 12^th , Graduation, Post Graduation and B.Ed/D.Ed of applicants for direct recruitment on merit of Shiksha Karmies.

¶30

(i)For the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-3, 20 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in 10^th , 50 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in 12^th and 30 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in B.Ed/D.Ed.

¶31

(ii) For the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, 20 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in 12^th , 50 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in Graduation and 30 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in B.Ed.

¶32

(iii) For the appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-1, 20 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in Graduation, 50 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in Post Graduation and 30 marks on the percentage of marks obtained in B.Ed.”

¶33

Thus, he stated that the instant petition is devoid of merits, and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶35

1. Admittedly, the petitioners are aspirants who did not participate in the recruitment process, though they were eligible. The advertisement was issued in the year 2011 and a list of eligible candidates was prepared by the employer based on marks secured by them in 12th Class and B. Ed./D.Ed. The

¶36

-4-

¶37

recruitment process was completed in the year 2011-2012 and appointment orders were also issued; there are 3 methods for appointment; a. by direct recruitment, b . by competitive exam, or, c. by both.

¶38

1. In the present case, the respondent authorities/employer took a decision to fill the vacancies on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates as per the Rules, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents acted contrary to the law. Further, the petitioners did not challenge the Rules, particularly Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikshakarmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2007 ; therefore, the instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No Costs.

¶39

1. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶42

Nadim

Deepti Namdeo and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepti Namdeo and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swati Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dhobi Das Ratre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

(Deleted) Praveen Kumar Philip (Died) Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Sanjay Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Shiv Dayal Rai Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors.

Basant Kumar Sonwani and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.