Disposed¶36

Vandana Waghmare v. Bharti Pradhan District Education Officer (D.E.O.)

Chhattisgarh HC4 May 2026CONT/1332/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: contempt of court; willful disobedience; compliance with writ directions; contempt proceeding dropped; contempt notice discharged; Guest Teacher appointment; Guest Lecturer; Vidya Mitans preference; Clause-4 and Clause 4.3 of Instruction dated 24.06.2019; bonus marks instruction dated 12.05.2023; District Education Officer Kondagaon; WPS 6997/2021 order dated 28.3.2025; decision dated 08.10.2025; vacant posts of Teacher; Academic Session 2025-26; High Court of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur; Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge; CONT No. 1332 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to petitioners: contempt proceeding against the respondent dropped, contempt notice discharged, and the contempt petition closed. ¶36

Vandana Waghmare Vs Bharti Pradhan District Education Officer (D.E.O.) — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to petitioners: contempt proceeding against the respondent dropped, contempt notice discharged, and the contempt petition closed.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (District Education Officer, Kondagaon) willfully disobeyed the Court's order dated 28.3.2025 in WPS 6997/2021, which disposed of the writ petition by directing examination of the petitioners' claims and appointment of eligible candidates as Guest Teachers, such that contempt lies.

¶28

Court's answer

This Court concluded that the respondent has complied with the direction it issued in the writ order; accordingly, the contempt proceeding initiated against the respondent is dropped and the contempt notice stands discharged.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The Court reasoned that the writ direction required the claim to be considered strictly per instruction dated 24.06.2019, under whose Clause-4 first preference for appointment goes to Vidya Mitans and second to applicants of the same revenue district, which the petitioners herein do not qualify (they instead claim coverage under Clause 4.3 open to residents of the State); combined with the authority's recorded reason that Vidya Mitans available exceed vacant Teacher posts, this supported the compliance finding.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (CONT No. 1332 of 2025, decided 05/05/2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Parth Prateem Sahu, J.) by eleven Guest Teachers of Kondagaon district alleging willful disobedience by the District Education Officer of the order dated 28.3.2025 in WPS 6997/2021, which disposed of their writ petition by directing the DEO, with the school Principal, to examine their claims and appoint eligible candidates as Guest Teachers against vacant posts strictly per instruction dated 24.06.2019 (bonus marks per instruction dated 12.05.2023), before Academic Session 2025-26. The Court found the authority did consider the claim and rejected it by decision dated 08.10.2025, because Vidya Mitans available exceeded vacant Teacher posts; per Clause-4 of the 24.06.2019 instruction, first preference goes to Vidya Mitans and second to same-revenue-district applicants, neither of which the petitioners satisfy (they invoke Clause 4.3, open to all State residents). Holding the respondent compliant, the Court dropped the contempt proceeding, discharged the notice and closed the petition.

¶1

¶2

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶3

2026:CGHC:20934

¶4

Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.05.06 18:50:40 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CONT No. 1332 of 2025

¶8

Vandana Waghmare D/o Lalit Waghmare Aged About 44 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government High School Mohalai, Block Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Hema Shrivastava D/o Dilip Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 38 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School Parond, Block Baderajpur, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Murli Manohar S/o Gajendra Aged About 29 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government High School Jarandi, Block Makadi, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Lakhee Sethiya S/o Chandrashekhar Sethiya Aged About 34 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School Makadi, Block Makadi, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Gulmat Sahu S/o Nathelal Sahu Aged About 32 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School Honawondi, Block Baderajpur District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Umeshwari Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 34 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government High School Tamrawand, Block Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶14

¶15

Bhavani Patel S/o Sagru Ram Patel Aged About 33 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government High School Bagbeda, Block Makadi, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Gautam Sahu S/o Banshi Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School Kshamtapur, Block Makadi, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Geeta Pandey D/o Radhe Shayam Pandey Aged About 30 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government High School Themgaon, Block Makadi, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶18

Maheshwari Sethiya D/o Badrinath Sethiya Aged About 31 Years Working As Guest Teacher, Government Higher Secondary School Bangoli, Block Pharasgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶19

Mamta Pandey D/o Aytu Ram Pandey Aged About 36 Years Working as Guest Teacher, Government High School Mandoki Khargaon, Block Baderajpur District Kondagaon (CG)

¶20

... Petitioners

¶21

versus

¶22

Bharti Pradhan District Education Officer (D.E.O.) Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶23

... Respondent

¶24

For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate

¶25

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶26

Order On Board

¶27

05/05/2026

¶28

Petitioners have filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience by respondent herein of the order dated 28.3.2025 passed in WPS 6997/2021 whereby the Court has disposed of writ petition observing thus:-

¶29

¶30

“9. Therefore, it is directed that the District Education Officer in coordination with the Principal of the concerning school shall examine the case of the petitioners along with other eligible candidates and if they are found eligible for appointment to the post of Guest Teacher strictly in accordance with the instruction dated 24.06.2019 they shall be given appointment as Guest Teacher against vacant posts. It is also directed that if there is any provision of bonus marks on the basis of requisite service length, they shall be provided as per instruction dated 12.05.2023. Let this exercise be carried out in transparent manner before start of Academic Session 2025-26.”

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent submits that according to direction issued in writ petition, claim of petitioners was considered, decision was taken on 08.10.2025 and in view of discussions made therein that it is not possible to give appointment to the petitioners, their claim was rejected. He pressed upon Clause 8 of the decision dated 08.10.2025 and submits that Vidya Mitans are to be given preference for appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer, however, in the order dated 08.10.2025 it is clearly mentioned that Vidya Mitans available are more than the vacant posts of Teacher.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioners made an attempt to dispute factual position with regard to availability of Vidya Mitans and submission of their applications. However, upon asking whether any fact is specifically pleaded in this regard, he submits that this is contempt petition, therefore, there is no such specific factual pleading supported with affidavit.

¶33

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties.

¶34

¶35

Perusal of the extracted portion of the order, subject matter of this contempt petition, would show that direction was issued to the authority concerned to consider the claim of petitioners herein for appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer strictly in accordance with the instruction dated 24.06.2019. According to Clause-4 of Instruction dated 24.06.2019, first preference for appointment is to be given to Vidya Mitans; second preference is to be given to applicants of the same revenue district. Petitioners herein do not qualify aforementioned two preferences, however, according to petitioners, they fall within the purview of Clause 4.3 under which it is made open to all the residents of the State, subject to fulfilling requisite qualification.

¶36

In the aforementioned facts of the case, considering the reason assigned by the authority for rejecting claim of petitioners that Vidya Mitans available are more than vacant posts of Teacher, I am of the considered view that respondent has complied with the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 28.03.2026, therefore, contempt proceeding initiated against respondent is dropped and contempt notice stands discharged.

¶37

The contempt petition is closed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶40

roshan/-

Vandana Waghmare v. Bharti Pradhan District Education Officer (D.E.O.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Waghmare v. Bharti Pradhan District Education Officer (D.E.O.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parivesh Parihar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Geeta Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajkumari Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deval Singh Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Kumar Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anil Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh