Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Jyoti Hirwani – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 595 of 2025 | WPS No. 943/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarthy
For the Respondents: Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Ms. Aishley Shrivastava
The absence of requisite qualifications for appointment to educational posts under the Right to Education Act invalidates employment decisions.
Headnote:(A) Right to Education Act, 2009 - Statutory requirements for teachers - Appointment of Lecturers without requisite qualifications is impermissible under the Act. (Paras 6, 14, 16)
(B) Judicial Review - The appellate court does not interfere if the lower court's decision reflects no arbitrariness or illegality. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was appointed as Lecturer but lacked a B.Ed degree, leading to cancellation of appointment after more than six months of service. Dismissal of writ petition by the Single Judge was challenged.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's ruling that the appellant lacked the requisite qualification and that the recovery order should be quashed was upheld.
Issues: Eligibility for appointment under the Right to Education Act and procedural correctness in the termination of appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a B.Ed degree rendered the appointment void, and the learned Single Judge acted within his jurisdiction to uphold administrative actions compliant with statutory guidelines.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
For Appellant
: Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarthy, Advocate
For Respondents-State
: Mr.
Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General
For Respondent No.3
: Ms. Aishley Shrivastava, Advocate
11.08 .2025
1 I.A. No.01, an application for condonation of delay of 74 days has been filed by the appellant.
2 Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 74 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
4 By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and quash/set-aside the impugned part of the order dated 17-03-2025 passed by Single Judge in WPS No. 943/2021 and order dated 08-04-2016 of respondent no. 2 may kindly be maintained and respondent may kindly be ordered reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.”
5 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.943/2021 (Smt. Jyoti Hirwani v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed.
6 The brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge were that respondent No. 3 had initiated proceedings for the appointment of a Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs. 5300-1500- 8300 along with all admissible DA. The appellant/writ petitioner was a wait-listed candidate and was appointed on 09.04.2015 as Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School, Siloti, in Block Kurud, District Dhamtari. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of respondent No. 3 that the appellant/writ petitioner did not possess a B.Ed degree. Therefore, his appointment order was cancelled on 13.04.2015 by the Chief Executive Officer, District Dhamtari.
7 It was also the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that the termination order was not communicated to him, and as such, he worked there for more than six months thereafter. The appellant/writ petitioner then filed WP(S) No. 4613 of 2015, wherein, vide order dated 04.12.2015, the Coordinate Bench directed the appellant/writ petitioner to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) within 30 days. In pursuance of the said order, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Revenue, Raipur, which was registered as Case No. 55-A/89 for the year 2015-16.
8 The Divisional Commissioner, Revenue, Raipur, had allowed the appeal vide order dated 08.04.2016 and set aside the order dated 13.04.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Chief Executive Officer, Dhamtari, preferred a revision before the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, vide Case No. 441/Nyay.Pancha/2016-17. The Secretary had allowed the revision filed by the CEO, set aside the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, and also directed that disciplinary action be taken against the officer who had initiated the procedure for the appointment of non-B.Ed candidates.
9 Being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.943/2021 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2025.
10 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.
11 Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that Selection Committee had selected the petitioner purely on the basis of merit. Res
