Naman Kumar Rohilla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010405072023

2026:CGHC:28887

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 9644 of 2023

¶7

Naman Kumar Rohilla S/o Shri Sushil Rohilla Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Services (Posted As Guest Lecturer (Geography) At Government College Bishrampur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. R/o Near Nagar Palika Surajpur, P.O. And P.S. - Surajpur, Tehsil - Surajpur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Commissioner, Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Joint Director, Higher Education, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Government College Bishrampur, Through Its Principal, Post And P.S. - Bishrampur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer.

¶16

2

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

(10^th July, 2026)

¶20

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of

¶21

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ(s), order(s), direction(s), by quashing the impugned letter/communication dated 31/10/2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by the office of Respondent No.4 (Government College Bishrampur) and also the impugned letter/communication dated 30/10/2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by the office of Respondent No.3 (Joint Director).

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the Respondent Authorities for its kind perusal.

¶24

10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶25

Facts of the case, in brief, are that while filing this writ petition, the petitioner was working on the post of Guest Lecturer (Geography) in Government College, Bishrampur, Distt. Surajpur. On 6.9.2023 the office of respondent No.4 issued an advertisement for appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer (Geography) at Government College, Bishrampur, Distt. Surajpur. Name of the petitioner finds place at S.No.5 in the merit list issued on 14.9.2023 by respondent No.4. Based on aforesaid merit list, the office of Government College, Bishrampur

¶26

3

¶27

had issued a letter of appointment on 30.9.2023 vide Annexure P/6 to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner joined his duty on the same day. Subsequently, vide impugned communications dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) and dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/2), appointment of the petitioner on the post of Guest Lecturer (Geography) was cancelled. Hence this petition has been filed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as per merit list (Annexure P/4) prepared by the office of Government College, Bishrampur, Distt. Surajpur, the petitioner was one of the meritorious candidates. Since the other candidates more meritorious than the petitioner did not join the said post, the petitioner was issued appointment letter (Annexure P/6). The aforesaid fact was informed by the College to the petitioner, therefore, now the respondents cannot say that appointment of the petitioner was against the Circular dated 18.7.2014 (Annexure R/1) issued by the Commissioner, Higher Education, Naya Raipur. Hence he prays that this petition may be allowed and the impugned letters/communications (Annexures P/1 & P/2) be quashed.

¶29

The respondents/State have filed its reply. Learned counsel for the respondents/State, referring to its reply, would submit that procedure of marking for appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer (Geography) has been prescribed vide Circular dated 18.7.2014 (Annexure R/1) issued by the Commissioner, Higher Education, Naya

¶30

4

¶31

Raipur. He submits that as per communication dated 7.9.2022 (Annexure P/7), some modifications were made in the norms prescribed earlier. According to the norms prescribed for appointment of Guest Lecturer, Dr. Vijaylal Tiwari and other candidates were found more meritorious than the petitioner. As such, the respondent authorities subsequently realized that there was mistake in the appointment of the petitioner as it was against the prescribed norms of Annexure R/1. Being so, appointment of the petitioner was cancelled vide impugned communications of Annexures P/1 & P/2. In view of above, there is no arbitrariness or illegality in canceling the appointment of the petitioner. The present petition lacks any substance and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

For appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer, the Commissioner, Higher Education, Naya Raipur had issued a Circular dated 18.7.2014 (Annexure R/1) which was later modified vide communication dated 7.9.2022 (Annexure P/7). Different marks have been allotted to the candidates having Ph.D., N.E.T., S.E.T., M.Phil. as well as individual degree along with marking on percentage obtained by the candidates in PG examination and for teaching experience also. After analyzing the requisite norms possessed by the candidates, a tabulation chart (Annexure P/4) was prepared. Perusal of the said chart

¶34

5

¶35

(Annexure P/4) shows that Dr. Vijaylal Tiwari and several other candidates secured more marks than the petitioner. Despite that, it is surprising that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.4 bypassing the more meritorious candidates. Thus, appointment of the petitioner is completely found to be against the norms prescribed in the Circulars of Annexures R/1 and P/7. He was not entitled to get appointment on the post of Guest Lecturer (Geography).

¶36

The petitioner has not pleaded in the writ petition that Dr. Vijaylal Tiwari and other candidates, who had secured more marks than him, did not join the post, therefore, order of appointment was issued to the petitioner. As such, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be relied upon.

¶37

In view of the above discussion, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned communications (Annexures P/1 & P/2) cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Guest Lecturer (Geography), which warrants interference by this Court. The instant petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 21.12.2023 issued in favour of the petitioner is hereby recalled.

¶38

Digitally signed MOHD by MOHDAKHTAR KHAN AKHTAR Date: KHAN 2026.07.1316:35:58 +0530

¶39

Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶40

Khan

¶41

6

Naman Kumar Rohilla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naman Kumar Rohilla 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

Juggadevi (Dead), Throguh Her Legal Representatives- Hemchand Sankalecha Vs Bachchu Mistri @ Abdul Gaffar

Surekha Barapatre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Adhin Ram Sinha Vs Sahni Ram Sahu

Anita Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Manisha Mirche Vs Vijay Kumar Mirche

Narayan Prasad Pandey Vs Dr. K. v. Rao