Meenakshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

authorities to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre in Durg Division Durg with all consequential benefit, in the interest of justice.

¶22

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶23

2) The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board on 9.3.2019 for filling up the post of Teacher (English). The petitioner completed her Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2008 with FC-Hindi Language, FC-English Language, Political Science, Economics and Geography (Theory and Practical) as her subjects. Thereafter, she passed the B.Ed examination in the year 2010 and qualified the TET examination in the year 2011. Subsequently, she obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2018 with FC-Hindi Language, FC-English Language, Hindi Literature-I & II, English Literature-I & II and Sanskrit Literature-I & II as her subjects. Pursuant to advertisement, she submitted her application for the post of Teacher (English). The petitioner participated in the selection process and was declared eligible. She was invited for documents verification and at that stage her candidature was rejected on the ground that she had passed the B.Ed and TET examinations prior to obtaining her graduation degree.

¶24

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had already completed her Bachelor of Arts degree in the year

¶25

3

¶26

2008 with FC-Hindi Language, FC-English Language, Political Science, Economics and Geography (Theory and Practical) as her subjects. He would contend that the petitioner passed the B.Ed examination in the year 2010 and qualified the TET examination in the year 2011 and thus, she had completed her B.Ed and TET after obtaining her graduation degree, and therefore, the reason assigned by respondent No.3 in the rejection order dated 16.3.2022 (Annexure-P/1) is erroneous. It is further contended that after completing another Bachelor of Arts degree with FCHindi Language, FC-English Language, Hindi Literature-I & II, English Literature-I & II and Sanskrit Literature-I & II, the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher (English) E-Cadre and she was duly selected. She would pray to allow this petition. It is also contended that vide interim order dated 12.5.2022, the respondents were directed to keep one post of Teacher (English) in E-Cadre vacant.

¶27

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner had passed the B.Ed and TET examinations before obtaining her graduation degree and therefore, her candidature was rightly rejected.

¶28

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

4

¶30

6) The petitioner first graduated in the year 2008 and thereafter, passed the B.Ed examination in the year 2010. Being eligible, she appeared in the TET examination In the year 2011 and qualified the same. Subsequently, she again pursued a Bachelor of Arts degree with FC-Hindi Language, FC-English Language, Hindi Literature-I & II, English Literature-I & II and Sanskrit Literature-I & II, which she completed in the year 2018. Thereafter, she submitted her application for the post of Teacher (English). The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she had passed B.Ed and TET examination prior to obtaining her graduation degree. However, this observation appears to be erroneous, as the petitioner had already obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in the year 2008 before appearing in the B.Ed examination in 2010 and the TET examination in 2011. Accordingly, the order dated 16.3.2022 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of 90 days in accordance with the law.

¶31

7) With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of . Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶33

Nimmi

Meenakshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P.C. Ratre Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Baghel Vs State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh

R.S. Rathore Vs Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

M/S Salasar Tradeco Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Commercial Tax GST

Phuljhar Education Society, Vs State of Chhattisgarh