Dr. Rohit Kumar Sahu Vs Union Of India

¶1

1

SMT NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:33906

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5285 of 2016

¶7

1 - Dr. Rohit Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Natthu Lal Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Bareli, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resourses, Department, Shastry Bhawan, New Delhi India, Delhi

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The University Grant Commission, Through The Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zaffar Marg, New Delhi India, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶13

4 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Shri J.N. Nande, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

17.07.2025

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶19

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and aside /quash the disqualification List passed by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, where by the petitioner has been disqualified for the Assistant Professor Examination 2014 (Higher Education),

¶20

2

¶21

(Annexure P/01).

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.02 & 04 to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.09.2014, treating him as eligible and qualified.

¶23

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

¶24

The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh and is otherwise eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Commerce, except for not meeting the minimum criteria of 50% marks in graduation. The petitioner secured 52.87% marks in the 12^th examination, 49.88% in graduation, 61% in post-graduation and 66% in the Master of Philosophy (M.Phil) in English Examination. He also secured 63% in the Diploma in Translation. The petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Classes (OBC). According to the circulars issued from time to time, the OBC candidates are entitled to get a relaxation of 5% marks at the graduation level; however, the respondents have allegedly ignored the UGC guidelines and disqualified the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner has stated that though he obtained less than 50% marks in Graduation, the State ought to have extended the relaxation of 5%, as the petitioner is a member of the OBC category. It is further pleaded that, due to the denial of the relaxation, the petitioner was not considered for selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.9.2014 for the post of Assistant Professor.

¶26

3

¶27

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that, according to the University Grant Commission (UGC) Guidelines, the relaxation in minimum qualification marks is not applicable to the post of Assistant Professor. He has invited the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondent No.3.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶30

Taking into consideration the fact that there is no provision to extend the relaxation in the minimum eligibility criteria to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories for the post of Assistant Professor and in the absence of any such provision either in the UGC regulations or the rules framed by the Public Service Commission, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby

¶31

dismissed . No cost(s).

¶32

Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶35

Nimmi

Dr. Rohit Kumar Sahu v. Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Rohit Kumar Sahu v. Union Of India

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

Rekha Agarwal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku.alka Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jalandhar Pradhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

(Died), Sampat, Through Legal Heirs Vs Somaru

Dilip Kumar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Lal Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh