Order on Board

(09-12-2024)

1. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the Order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.5 – Divisional Commissioner, Division Durg, District Durg whereby the Order dated 3.4.2014 (Annexure P- 14) passed by Respondent No.6 - Collector, Balod, District Balod affirming the selection and appointment of Respondent No.3 – Ku. Ageshwari Sahu on the post of Teacher (Municipal) in Social Science subject has been upheld.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual background:-

Respondent No.2 – Nagar Panchayat, Arjunda, District Balod issued Advertisement (Annexure P-7) for the post of Lecturers, Teachers and Assistant Teachers in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagriya Nikay) Samvarg (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2013 (for short ‘Rules of 2013)’. Only one post was advertised for the post of Teacher (Municipal) in Social Science subject for women in Unreserved category. Pursuant to the said Advertisement, the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.3 – Ku. Ageshwari Sahu and Respondent No.4 – Ku. Usha, among other applicants, applied for the said post and participated in the selection process. Respondent No.3 on the strength of securing 62.45% of marks i.e., highest among the other candidates, was selected for the said post and Respondent No.4 having secured 61% marks got second place whereas the Petitioner getting 59.87% marks was placed on third position in the waiting list. Aggrieved by her non-selection on the said post of Teacher (Municipal), the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4094/2013 which was disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal or revision before the competent authority. Petitioner, accordingly, preferred an appeal under Section 308 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 before the Collector, Balod who affirmed the selection and appointment of Respondent No.3 on the post of Teacher (Municipal) holding the same being in accordance with law and rejected the appeal of the Petitioner vide Order dated 3.4.2014 which has been upheld by the Commissioner, Division Durg by its Order dated 20.11.2014 which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that since in the Chhattisgarh Teachers Eligibility Test (for short ‘CGTET’) the Respondents No.3 & 4 have secured 52.70% and 56.75% respectively and the Petitioner has secured 61.49% in the said examination in which qualifying marks prescribed were 60% with 10% relaxation to the candidates belonging to SC, ST & OBC, the Respondents No. 3 & 4 having qualified the CGTET by availing the said benefit of relaxation under the OBC category they were not eligible to participate in the said recruitment process for the post of Teacher (Municipal) as CGTET qualified candidates under the Unreserved category, as they could only compete in the Reserved category that too in the OBC category. In support of his submission, Mr. Das relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others v . Pradeep Kumar and Others 1, specifically referring to paragraphs 20, 21 & 22 of the said decision. Thus, in view of the above submission, Mr. Das claims for consideration of the candidature of the Petitioner and rejection of the candidature of Respondents No.3 &

4 for the said post of Teacher (Municipal).

(2019) 10 SCC 120

4. None appears for Respondent No.3 as well as Respondent No.4, though duly served.

5. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the Note provided in the Annexure appended to Schedule III of the Rules of 2013 in accordance with which the said recruitment was conducted stands for “Minimum Marks obtained in Teacher Eligibility Test (T.E.T.)” and as per Note No.3 of the said Note, OB