DEEPTI SHENDEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

<div> 1<br /> <br /> <br /> 2026:CGHC:13668<br /> <b>NAFR </b><br /> <b>HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR</b><br /> <b>WPS No. 1732 of 2021</b><br />  Deepti Shendey D/o Shri Pyarelal Shendey Aged About 36 Years <br /> R/o 613/44, Awadhpuri, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil Durg, P.S. Nevai, <br /> District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh<br /> <b>... Petitioner(s)</b> <br /> <b>versus</b><br /> <b>1.</b> State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education <br /> Department, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, <br /> District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh<br /> <b>2.</b> The Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through The <br /> Secretary, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Nava <br /> Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : <br /> Raipur, Chhattisgarh<br /> <b>3.</b> Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, C Block, <br /> Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur <br /> Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh<br /> <b>4.</b> Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, 1st Floor, C <br /> Block, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur <br /> Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh<br /> <b>5.</b> University Grant Commission Through The Secretary, Bahadur <br /> Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002., District : New Delhi, Delhi<br /> <b>6.</b> Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya, Durg, (Durg University) <br /> Through The Registrar, Raipur Naka, Durg Chhattisgarh., District : <br /> Raipur, Chhattisgarh<br /> <b>7.</b> Pandit Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur <br /> Through The Registrar, Bilaspur Koni Birkona Marg, Gram Post - <br /> Birkona, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : <br /> Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh<br /> <b>... Respondent(s) </b><br /><br /> 2<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>For Petitioner</th><th>:</th><th>Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>For State</td><td>:</td><td>Mr. T.L. Bareth, P.L.</td></tr><tr><td>For Respondent-&lt;br&gt;Universities</td><td>:</td><td>Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate</td></tr><tr><td>For Respondent-UGC</td><td>:</td><td>Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate</td></tr><tr><td>For Respondent -VYAPAM</td><td>:</td><td>Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> <b> Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey</b><br /> <b>Order On Board</b><br /> <b>23.3.2026</b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>1)</th><th></th><th>By way of this petition, petitioner have sought following reliefs :-</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>10.1</th><th></th><th>That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>be pleased to set aside the impugned order</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>dated 26.10.2020 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>respondent No. 4, approved by respondent No.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3, in the interest of justice.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>10.2</th><th></th><th>That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>be pleased to direct respondent authorities to</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>grant appointment to the petitioner in the post</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>of Lecturer English subject T cadre or E cadre,</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>declaring her eligible, as per paw in the interest</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>of justice.</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>10.3</th><th></th><th>That, any other relief/ order which</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>may deem fit and just in the facts and</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>circumstances of the case including award of</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>the costs of the petition may be given.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>2)</th><th></th><th>Facts of present case are that on 9.3.2019, Directorate of Public</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> Instruction issued an advertisement for appointment on various <br /> posts of lecturers, teachers and assistant teachers under ‘T’ and <br /> other cadres for various subjects. The petitioner who belongs to <br /> scheduled caste, finding herself eligible for the post of Lecturer <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>(English), applied accordingly. She secured overall rank 235</th><th>th</th><th>,</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /><br /> 3<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>rank 12</th><th>th</th><th>in scheduled caste category, rank 132</th><th>nd</th><th>in female</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>category and rank 5</th><th>th</th><th>in scheduled caste – female category.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> However, during this process, an objection was raised with regard <br /> to her social status and same was removed. Subsequently, Joint <br /> Director, Directorate of Public Instruction rejected the candidature <br /> of petitioner vide order dated 26.10.2020 (Annexure P/1) on the <br /> ground that she obtained two degrees in the same academic year <br /> 2017, M.A. English and first semester of B.Ed.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>3)</th><th></th><th>Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submits that</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> although petitioner was meritorious but her candidature was <br /> rejected by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 26.10.2020 on the <br /> ground that she appeared in final semester of M.A. English and <br /> first Semester of B.Ed. in year 2017. He further submits that <br /> petitioner was pursuing her studies as M.A. Final student in year <br /> 2017 through distance learning mode whereas she was a regular <br /> student of B.Ed. in year 2017, thus there was no overlapping of <br /> courses. He contends that no clear prohibition has been made by <br /> the UGC or any competent body regarding prosecuting regular <br /> degree and degree from distance course in same year by a <br /> student, therefore order impugned is bad in law and deserves to <br /> be quashed.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>4)</th><th></th><th>On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Choubey, counsel for the</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> respondent-Universities submits that respondent authorities have <br /> rightly rejected the candidature of petitioner as she pursued two <br /><br /> 4<br /> courses in the same academic year which violates the Ordinance <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>No. 6 of</th><th>Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya, Durg.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>5)</th><th></th><th>Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, counsel for the respondent-UGC submits</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> that no regulation was issued by the UGC at the relevant time with <br /> regard to pursuing two courses simultaneously.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>6)</th><th></th><th>Mr. T.L. Bareth, P.L. and Mr. Yogendra Pandey, counsel for</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> respondent-VYAPAM support the order impugned.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>7)</th><th></th><th>I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> material available on record with utmost circumspection.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>8)</th><th></th><th>The candidature of petitioner has been rejected solely on the</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> ground that she has obtained two degrees in the same academic <br /> year, namely, Master of Arts in English and First Semester of <br /> B.Ed. However, it is quite vivid that petitioner pursued Master of <br /> Arts in English through distance learning mode whereas she <br /> pursued B.Ed. Course as regular student. Also, the advertisement <br /> dated 9.3.2019 issued by the Directorate of Public Instruction <br /> does not specify that a candidate who has obtained two degrees <br /> in the same academic year is disqualified from consideration for <br /> appointment to the post of Lecturer (English). <br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>9)</th><th></th><th>In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, decision taken</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> by the respondents No. 3 and 4 appears to arbitrary and illegal. <br /> Accordingly, the order dated 26.10.2020 is hereby quashed and <br /> respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to consider the petitioner’s <br /><br /> 5<br /> case for appointment to the post of Lecturer (English) afresh and <br /> pass and appropriate order within sixty days from the date of <br /> receipt of copy of this order.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Accordingly, the petition stands</th><th>allowed</th><th>.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> <br /> <b>Sd/-</b><br /> <b>(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)</b><br /> <b> </b> JUDGE<br /> A j i n k y a<br /> Digitally signed<br /> by AJINKYA<br /> PANSARE<br /> Date:<br /> 2026.03.23<br /> 16:55:43 +0530</div>