Allowed¶31

Bhikham Ram Sori v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 May 2026WPS/4718/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 4718 of 2022, Bhikham Ram Sori v. State of Chhattisgarh & others; Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; decision 12.05.2026; NAFR; Assistant Teacher recruitment; advertisement dated 09.03.2019; B.Ed. and T.E.T. qualification relaxation; Notification dated 10.01.2013, School Education Department; Schedule V of the Constitution of India; Governor's power; PVTG; scheduled area; Gariyaband; termination order dated 19.5.2022 quashed; appointment order dated 21.3.2022 restored; consequential benefits; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: termination order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure P/7) quashed; appointment order dated 21.3.2022 (Annexure-P/6) restored; respondent authority directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner. ¶31

Bhikham Ram Sori Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection/termination of the petitioner's appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher for want of B.Ed. and T.E.T. certificates was sustainable despite the Notification dated 10.01.2013 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, whereby that requirement was relaxed by the Governor under Schedule V of the Constitution of India for candidates in scheduled areas.

¶29

Court's answer

While the advertisement made B.Ed. and T.E.T. mandatory for the posts of Teacher and Assistant Teacher, the respondent authorities ignored the Notification dated 10.01.2013 whereby the requirement of D.Ed./B.Ed./T.E.T. was relaxed by the Governor in exercise of power conferred under Schedule V of the Constitution of India; the rejection of the petitioner, a resident of the scheduled area, on that ground could not stand.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The termination order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure P/7) is quashed and the order of appointment dated 21.3.2022 (Annexure-P/6) is restored; the respondent authority is directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (single bench, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), WPS No. 4718 of 2022, decided 12.05.2026 (NAFR). Recruitment of Assistant Teacher pursuant to advertisement dated 09.03.2019 — petitioner, a resident of Gariyaband (scheduled area), rejected/terminated for want of B.Ed. and T.E.T. certificates — Notification dated 10.01.2013 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department relaxed the requirement of D.Ed./B.Ed./T.E.T. by the Governor in exercise of power conferred under Schedule V of the Constitution of India for candidates residing in scheduled areas — respondent authorities ignored the Notification — termination order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure P/7) quashed; appointment order dated 21.3.2022 (Annexure-P/6) restored; respondent authority directed to grant all consequential benefits — petition allowed.

NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:22345

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4718 of 2022

¶7

1 - Bhikham Ram Sori S/o Son Singh Sori Aged About 30 Years R/o House No.78 Bagdabra Bindranawagarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Department Of School Education Directorate Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Collector Gariyaband Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶13

4 - The District Education Officer Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Kishanlal Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

12.05.2026

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :

¶19

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be

¶20

¶21

pleased to call for the records pertaining to recruitment of teacher related to advertisement dated 09/03/2019 from the respondents for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

¶22

10.2. That, the Hon' ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order of cancellation/ termination dated 19.5.2022 and declared the petitioner as eligible candidate under PVTG and gariyaband is declared as under schedule V of Constitution.

¶23

10.3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

¶25

petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to advertisement issued on 09.03.2019. He would further submit that the petitioner being resident of Gariyaband submitted his application form for the post of Assistant Teacher. He would contend that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not have B.Ed. and T.E.T. certificate. He would further contend that the State of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department issued a Notification dated 10.01.2013 whereby the requirement of B.Ed and T.ET. certificate was relaxed by the Governor exercising power of Schedule V of the Constitution of India for the candidates residing in scheduled area. He would further contend that admittedly the petitioner is resident of scheduled area, therefore, condition imposed in the advertisement to submit B.Ed. and T.E.T. certificate was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Schedule V of the Constitution of India. He would pray to quash the termination order dated 19.05.2022 issued by the District Education Department of District Gariyaband (C.G.) pertaining to the petitioners whereby the appointment order was rejected.

¶26

¶27

On the other hand, Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose submissions. He would submit that the appointment of the petitioner was rejected as he did not have requisite qualification of B.Ed and T.E.T. He would further submit that the decision was taken by the respondent authorities strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules and conditions prescribed in the advertisement. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

According to the advertisement, qualification of B.Ed and T.E.T. was mandatory requirement for the posts of Teacher and Assistant Teacher but at the same time, the respondent authorities ignored the Notification issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department dated 10.01.2013, whereby, the requirement of D.ED/B.ED/T.E.T. was relaxed by the Governor in exercise of power conferred under Schedule V of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, particularly, the Notification issued by the State Government dated 10.01.2013, the termination order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure P/7) pertaining to the petitioner is hereby quashed and the order of appointment dated 21.3.2022 (Annexure-P/6) is restored. The respondent authority is directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶31

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed .

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

Nimmi

Bhikham Ram Sori v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhikham Ram Sori 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra Kumar Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jivrakhan Lal Gupta Vs Sudarshan Halwai

Rajendra Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumari Sagira Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banshidhar Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amarnath Katiyar Vs Chief Electoral Officer