Dismissed

Smt. Indu Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Apr 2026WPS/6822/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of writ petitions by teachers whose appointments were cancelled for lacking the prescribed graduation qualification in Arts subjects. The court held that B.Com graduates with Applied Economics did not meet the requirement of studying History, Geography, Economics or Political Science at Bachelor's level under the Rules, 2019 and the advertisement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Indu Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2026:CGHC:17416

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 6307 of 2021

¶7

1 - Kalpana Dahariya D/o Rupchandra Dahariya Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 33, H.No. 398, Irrigation Colony, Near Arya Vidya Mandir, Rampur, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

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

¶11

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Joint Director Education, Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - District Education Officer District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

WPS No. 6822 of 2021

¶16

1 - Smt. Indu Chandra W/o Shri Satyendra Chandra Aged About 39 Years R/o Block No.A 501, Near T.V. Tower Atal Awas, Tahsil- Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Petitioner(s)

¶18

Versus

¶19

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan Raipur, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, 3rd Block, Indrawati Bhawan, Hod Building, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

3 - Joint Director Bilaspur, School Education Department, Tarbahar, Sheikh Gaffar Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

WPS No. 6335 of 2021

¶25

1 - Purvee Soni D/o Ramesh Kumar Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 35, Krishna Nagar, Baniya Para, Juna Bilaspur, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

--- Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

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

¶29

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Education, Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

4 - District Education Officer District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

¶31

WPS No. 6332 of 2021

¶32

1 - Jeewan Parshad S/o Fagu Ram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o C/o Fagu Ram Sahu, At P.O. Godam, Tehsil Saranggarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶33

--- Petitioner(s)

¶34

Versus

¶35

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

¶36

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶37

¶38

3 - Joint Director Education, Education Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶39

4 - District Education Officer District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s)

¶40

WPS No. 6309 of 2021

¶41

1 - Chandreshwar Manhare S/o K. R. Manhare Aged About 32 Years R/o C/o Manish Banjare, Infront Of Bajrang Bhawan, Near Balmukund School Talapara, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶42

--- Petitioner(s)

¶43

Versus

¶44

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

¶45

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶46

3 - Joint Director Education Education Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶47

4 - District Education Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶48

--- Respondent(s)

¶49

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
	Abhishek Thakur, Advocate
	Ms. Prakriti Jain, Advocate
For State	: Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶50

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶51

Order on Board

¶52

16/04/2026

¶53

Since a common issue is involved in this batch of writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard together, and are being decided by this common order.

¶54

The brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 3 issued order dated 25.10.2021, whereby the appointment order(s) of the petitioners were cancelled on the ground that they did not possess the requisite graduation qualification for Arts (English Medium) as

¶55

¶56

prescribed in the advertisement dated 09.03.2019. They were given an opportunity to submit their explanation along with relevant documents vide letter dated 07.10.2021, to which they replied on 12.10.2021. However, the documents produced related to contractual appointments and promotions in other districts and did not establish the required educational qualification. Consequently, they were found ineligible and in violation of Clause 6 of the terms and conditions of appointment order, their appointment orders were cancelled.

¶57

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that vide notification dated 05.03.2019, the School Education Department framed the Rules, 2019, wherein the minimum educational qualification for the post of Teacher (Social Science), as prescribed under Annexure1, is that a candidate must have studied any one of the subjects, namely History, Geography, Economics, or Political Science at the Bachelor’s level, along with B.Ed./D.Ed. and a valid TET certificate. It is contended that pursuant to the said Rules, an advertisement was issued for 152 posts of Teacher (Social Science), English Medium (ECadre), incorporating the same eligibility criteria. It is further contended that the petitioners, being graduates from the Commerce stream with Applied Economics as a subject, and possessing the requisite B.Ed./D.Ed. qualifications along with valid TET certificates, participated in the recruitment process and were selected and appointed after due verification.

¶58

It is argued that the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) has been passed in an arbitrary manner and in complete disregard of the material facts and applicable rules, as respondent No. 3 failed to consider the provisions of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2019”), the terms of the advertisement, as well as the detailed replies submitted by the

¶59

¶60

petitioners in response to the show cause notices. It is argued that respondent No. 3 has erroneously invoked Clause 6 of the appointment orders while passing the impugned order, as none of the petitioners concealed any material information or submitted any false or fabricated documents. The appointments of the petitioners were made only after due verification and scrutiny of all requisite documents by the competent authorities; thus, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

¶61

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the documents of the petitioners were not properly verified at the time of the recruitment process. However, as per Clause 6 of the appointment order, it is specifically mentioned that if the information or certificates furnished by the newly appointed teacher are found to be incorrect, he/she may be dismissed from service without prior notice, and action may also be taken under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that for the post of Teacher (Arts-English Medium), the required qualification was graduation in an Arts subject, whereas the petitioners had completed their graduation in B.Com, therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities is just and proper, and the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶62

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

¶63

The required qualification for the post of Teacher (Art- English Medium), as prescribed under the Rules, 2019 and the relevant advertisement, is that a candidate must have studied any one of the subjects, namely History, Geography, Economics, or Political Science at the Bachelor’s level, along with B.Ed./D.Ed. and a valid TET certificate.

¶64

From perusal of the educational documents of the petitioners, it is evident that they have completed their graduation in B.Com

¶65

¶66

(Commerce stream). Though some of them have studied Applied Economics, but same does not fulfill the requirement of having studied the core subjects prescribed under the Rules, 2019 and the advertisement for the post of Teacher (Art – English Medium), therefore, the petitioners lack the requisite qualification.

¶67

Taking into consideration the qualifications prescribed in the Rules, 2019 and the advertisement for the post of Teacher (Art – English Medium), no case is made out for grant of any relief. Accordingly, these writ petitions are hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶70

Nadim

Smt. Indu Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Indu Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailashram Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary

Dhirendra Kumar Dhirhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner

Nova Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mahamantri Audyogik Kshetra Majdoor Sangh

Hemant Kumar Belchandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Rashmi Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh