Dismissed¶34

Seema Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Apr 2026WPS/4959/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seema Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 4959 of 2021, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 17.04.2026 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. Keywords: teacher recruitment; Teacher (Biology); Assistant Teacher (Science); advertisement dated 09.03.2019; written test 05.08.2019; 72.606 marks; document verification 22.01.2021; selection list 24.08.2021; rejection letter 20.02.2021; TET 2014; D.Ed. 2018; Chhattisgarh Teachers Eligibility Test Examination 2011 guidelines; Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam); candidature rejection; eligibility; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, the court found no good ground to entertain the petition; accordingly the petition fails and is dismissed. ¶34

Seema Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.22 13:15:40 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:17649

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4959 of 2021

¶7

Seema Mishra D/o Shri Madhu Shankar Mishra Aged About 30 Years R/o Priyanka Sadan, Brahmanpara, Ward No. 07, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, P. S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur Through Its Chairman Vyapam Bhavan, North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

Joint Director Office Of Divisional Joint Director, Education Department Durg Chhattisgarh

¶14

5. District Education Officer Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Aakashdeep Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

17.04.2026

¶19

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 Issue appropriate writ/direction setting aside the impugned order the impugned letter dt. 20.02.2021 (Annexure P-8) and impugned

¶21

¶22

appointment order/list dated 24.08.2021 (Annexure P-9), in the interest of justice.

¶23

10.2 To direct the concerned respondent authority to issue fresh appointment order by including the petitioner for the post of Teacher (Biology) E- cadre.

¶24

10.3 To provide compensation and cost of the petition to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Facts of the present case are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.03.2019, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Science). Written test was conducted on 05.08.2019 in which petitioner secured 72.606 marks and became successful. Based on the merit list, petitioner along with other successful candidates were called for verification of documents on 22.01.2021 and thereafter, she was declared eligible. On 24.08.2021, list of selected candidates was issued in which name of the petitioner was not included. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that her candidature was rejected vide letter dated 20.02.2021 on the ground that she obtained D.Ed. Degree/ certificate after passing Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) examination and therefore, order of appointment was not issued in her favor.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Teacher (Biology) as required in advertisement issued by the respondents but her name was not considered. In the first round of documents verification on 22.01.2021, after verification of documents, proposal for appointment was given to the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner is a selected candidate, however, respondent No. 4 without providing any opportunity of hearing and ignoring the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement, rejected her candidature. He

¶27

¶28

would argue that rejection of candidature of petitioner is arbitrary action and in violation of principles of nature justice. He would pray to allow this petition.

¶29

On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for respondents oppose the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner. They would submit that in the advertisement dated 09.03.2019 minimum qualification was specifically prescribed. They would further submit that petitioner submitted online application for the post of Teacher (Biology) and she secured minimum required marks in the written examination and was called for verification of documents on 22.01.2021. They would submit that respondent No. 4 after verification of the documents, raised specific objection that petitioner obtained D.Ed. Degree/ certificate after passing TET examination. The minimum qualification required was 50% in Higher Secondary, Diploma in Education and TET certificate. TET examination was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur and to appear in the TET examination, the candidate was required to possess two-year Diploma in Education course. They would contend that the petitioner appeared in TET examination in the year 2014 and obtained D.Ed in the year 2018, and she suppressed this fact therefore, petitioner would not get any benefit of the TET certificate.

¶30

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

¶31

Undisputedly, advertisement for appointment to the post of Teacher (Biology) was published on 09.03.2019. The petitioner participated in recruitment and became successful in the written examination. She was also

¶32

¶33

called for documents verification. Petitioner passed TET examination in the year 2014. According to guidelines/ instructions of Chhattisgarh Teachers Eligibility Test Examination, 2011, for appearing in the TET examination minimum qualification to teach class 1st to 5th was Higher Secondary (or equivalent) with minimum 50% marks and two-year Diploma in Elementary Education (whatever title is given to it).

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts discussed-above, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶35

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶36

$iddhant

Seema Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malaram Vs Sukhram

Kheduram Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Bai Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Honey Lalwani Vs Hidayatullah National Law University

Anju Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (1) Vs Shri Manoj Rajput