Uttam Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010308052021

2026:CGHC:28468

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 6580 of 2021

¶7

1 - Uttam Kumar S/o Shri Dinu Ram Aged About 26 Years R/o 180, Ward No. 10, Bajrang Chowk, Village Kutena Post Panduka, Atarmara, Gariyaband District, Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Heeralal Sahu S/o Shri Leelaram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o 36, Ward No. 2, Bhasera, Fingeshwar, Gariyaband District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Surendra Kaiwart S/o Shri Devi Prasad Kaiwart Aged About 29 Years R/o 33, Ward 04, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Vtc Gobra Nawapara, Sub District Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

4 - Tirthraj Sahu S/o Shri Jwala Prasad Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o 65, Ward No. 12 Sahu Para, Jhalpali, Lambar, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶11

5 - Tipusultan S/o Shri Rajkumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Bajar Chowk, Rawad, Parsada Joshi Rajim District Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶12

6 - Komal Sahu S/o Shri Hemant Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o 141, Sirikala, Fingeshwar, Gariyaband District- Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶13

7 - Bhuneshwar Sahu S/o Shri Tarachand Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o 23 (4) Vinayak Nagar, Ring Road, Fingeshwar, Ward No. 12, Fingeshwar, Gariyaband DistrictGariyaband (C.G.)

¶14

8 - Buddha Dev S/o Shri Jethu Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Kauhi, Goverdhan Chowk, Kohi Rantarai, Durg District- Durg (C.G.)

¶15

9 - Gajendra Sahu S/o Shri Bharat Lal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Kosrangi, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

... Petitioner(s)

¶17

versus

¶18

2

¶19

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶21

3 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Department Of School Education Indrawati Bhawan, Block-C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶22

4 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through- Its Secretary, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶23

5 - National Council For Teacher Education Through- Its Secretary, Wing-Ii, Hans Bhawan-1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002

¶24

6 - Sushil Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Johit Ram Sahu, Posted As Assistant Teacher (Science) At Government Primary School, Pulaini, Kasdol, DistrictBaloda Bazar (C.G.)

¶25

7 - Lekh Ram Verma S/o Shri Parmanand Verma Aged About 28 Years Posted As Teacher (Mathematics) At Government Primary School, Ghumarguda, Block Devbhog District- Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶26

8 - Keshav Vishwakarma, Behind Mission Compound, Ward No. 10, Imlibhata, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶27

... Respondent(s)

¶28

For Petitioner	: Ms. Ankita Gourha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AjayKumarani, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A.
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate

¶29

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶30

Judgment On Board

¶31

9.7.2026

¶32

1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought following

¶33

reliefs:-

¶34

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records of the case for its kind perusal.

¶35

3

¶36

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities and restrain them from conducting selection and appointment of only CTET qualified candidates for the post of teachers and Assistant Teachers, in various subjects.

¶37

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities to scrutinize and cancel/quash any such appointment made in favour of CTET qualified candidates including the private respondent no. 8, being contrary to Rules, 2019 and provisions under RTE Act, 2009, as well as Rules/Guidelines framed by the NCTE.

¶38

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities to conduct the counseling/verification of the petitioners and consider their applications for appointment on the post of Teachers and Assistant Teacher.

¶39

10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities to conduct fresh verifications of documents of the private respondents and other identically placed candidates who have secured appointment on the post of Teaches and Assistant Teachers, on the basis of NIOS Certificate which is contrary to Rules, 2019 and ex-consequenti cancel the appointment granted in favour of private respondents and other identically placed candidates.

¶40

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Directorate of Public Instructions, State of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 9.3.2019 for filling the vacant posts of Lecturer, Teacher and Assistant Teacher under E and T cadres across the entire state and according to notification issued by National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dated 23.8.2010, the minimum qualifications for classes I to V and classes VI to VIII are as under :-

¶41

4

¶42

(i) Classes I-V

¶43

(a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

¶44

OR

¶45

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002

¶46

OR

¶47

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El. Ed.)

¶48

OR

¶49

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2 year Diploma in Education (Special Education)

¶50

AND

¶51

(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

¶52

(ii) Classes VI-VII

¶53

(a) B.A./B.Sc. And 2- year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known)

¶54

OR

¶55

B.A./ B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1-year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed)

¶56

OR

¶57

B.A./B.Sc. With at least 45% marks and 1 -year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard

¶58

OR

¶59

Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least

¶60

5

¶61

50% marks and 4-year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B. El. Ed.)

¶62

OR

¶63

Senior Secondary () with at least 50% marks and 4- year B.A/ B.Sc. Ed. Or B.A Ed./ BSc. Ed.

¶64

OR

¶65

B.A/ B.Sc with at least 50% marks and 1 – year B.Ed. (Special Education)

¶66

AND

¶67

(b) Pass in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.

¶68

She further submits that a candidate must have passed

¶69

Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE and “appropriate Government” is defined under Section 2(a) of The Right Of Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009 [hereinafter to referred as ‘Act of 2009’] and same is reproduced herein-below:-

¶70

2 . In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, –

¶71

(a) “appropriate Government” means–

¶72

(i) in relation to a school established, owned or controlled by the Central Government, or the administrator of the Union Territory, having no legislature, the Central Government ;

¶73

(ii) in relation to a school, other than the school referred to in sub-clause (i), established within the territory of–

¶74

(A) A State, the State Government ;

¶75

(B) a Union Territory having legislature, the Government of that Union territory;

¶76

6

¶77

She contends that the selection committee considered the names of candidates who passed TET conducted by Central Government whereas it should have given weightage to the candidates who passed TET conducted by the State Government. She further contends that the procedure adopted by the selection committee is contrary to the Chhattisgarh School Education Service (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 [hereinafter to referred as ‘Recruitment Rules’] and intent of Act of 2009. She prays for a direction to restrain the respondent authorities from selecting and/or appointing the CTET qualified candidates and further consider the names of CGTET qualified candidates.

¶78

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that required qualification for appointment to the posts of Lecturer and Teacher was TET and the candidates who passed TET either conducted by Central Government or State Government would be eligible to participate in the recruitment process and there is no bar created either in the Recruitment Rules or the Act of 2009 to give preference to candidates who have qualified the TET examination conducted by State Government. They further submit that recruitment process had already been concluded and selected candidates have been appointed therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶79

7

¶80

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶81

5) From a bare reading of the Recruitment Rules and the provisions contained in Section 2(a) of Act of 2009, it is quite clear that a candidate must possess TET certificate either conducted by Central Government or State Government and there is no special preference or extra weightage given to a candidate who has passed CGTET therefore the contention made by Ms. Gourha cannot be accepted.

¶82

6) At present, recruitment process has been concluded and the selected candidates have been offered appointment and there is no interim protection available in favour of the petitioners herein therefore no relief can be granted at this stage.

¶83

7) In view of the foregoing discussion, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶84

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶85

A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.10 11:31:03 +0530

Uttam Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jyoti Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chaitram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimlesh Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pashupati Nath Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Prasad Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh