Disposed¶29

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2026WPS/3792/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 3792 of 2022; Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh; Teacher (English) recruitment; preference for Raipur Division (E-Cadre) versus allotment of Surguja Division (T-Cadre); refusal to join; cut-off 40.957 versus 35.11 marks; disposal without opinion on merits; liberty to file detailed representation before Director, Directorate of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction; decision preferably within 120 days; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; order dated 22.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before respondent No. 2; respondent No. 2 directed to examine the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, preferably within 120 days. ¶29

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

NIRMALA RAO

CGHC010174572022

2026:CGHC:31171

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 3792 of 2022

¶8

1 - Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ghurau Ram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 78, Ward No. 03, Pussore, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Director, Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Joint Director, Education Division Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate alongwith Shri G.P. Mathur, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Siddharth Ojha, P.L.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

22.07.2026

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

¶21

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation and issue appointment order for the Raipur Division E-Cadre in favour of the petitioner as per higher rank within stipulated time, 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

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Teacher (English). He was selected and was thereafter called for document verification vide order dated 7.1.2020. The petitioner was allotted a posting in Surguja Division (T-Cadre) whereas, he had given his preference for Raipur Division (E-Cadre). The petitioner submitted an objection with regard to the allotment of Surguja Division and refused to join. He would contend that although the petitioner secured 35.11 marks in the examination, he was not offered appointment in Raipur Division (E-Cadre) whereas, the candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner were considered for the said Division and Cadre. He would submit that, till date, the respondent authorities have not issued an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the said authority may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the name of the petitioner was considered for appointment in Surguja

¶25

¶26

Division (T-Cadre) but he refused to join and therefore, the order of appointment was not issued in his favour. It is further contended that the cut-off marks for Raipur Division (E-Cadre) was 40.957 whereas, the petitioner had secured only 35.11 marks. Therefore, his name was not considered for allotment of a posting in Raipur Division (E-Cadre). He would submit the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

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

¶28

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the said authority is directed to examine the matter and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 120 days.

¶29

With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶32

Nimmi

Rakesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Yadav 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

Similar cases

Smt. Yedla Sharda @ Y. Sharda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rice Mill Hamal Reja Sangh Vs Union of India

Kumar Sai Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vivek Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dalavi Vasant Ananda Vs Union of India

Vinod Kumar Rathore Vs S.E.C.L.