SIKHA SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:26139
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1421 of 2021
 Sikha Singh Wife Of Shri Sourabh Singh Aged About 39 Years
Resident Of Nariyal Kothi, Dayalband, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh),
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Chhattisgarh, Raipur
Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Pt. Sunder Lal Sharma (Open) University Through Registrar, Koni,
Birkoni Marg, Bilaspur, District Bilapsur, Chhattisgarh
4. Sarguja University Through Its Registrar Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Adv. along
with Mr. Satya Kumar Mandloi, Adv.
For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L.
For Respondent-
Universities
: None, though served
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board

2
25.6.2026
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs :-
(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash Annexure P-1 and direct the
respondent to consider the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Lecturer (English),
and appoint the petitioner accordingly, as per
order of merit, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in
the facts and circumstances of the case, may
also be granted.
2) Facts of present case are that on 9.3.2019, Directorate of Public
Instruction issued an advertisement for appointment of lecturers,
teachers and assistant teachers under ‘T’ and other cadres for
various subjects. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer
(English) and participated in the recruitment process and she was
declared ineligible vide order dated 19.11.2020 on the ground that
she obtained two degrees in the same academic year 2012, B.Ed.
and first year of M.A. English.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s
candidature was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated
19.11.2020 on the ground that she appeared in first year of M.A.
English and B.Ed. in year 2012. He contends that petitioner was
pursuing her studies of first year of M.A. English in year 2012
through distance learning mode whereas she was a regular
student of B.Ed. in year 2012, thus there was no overlapping of
courses. He argues that no clear prohibition has been made by

3
the UGC or any competent body regarding prosecuting regular
degree and degree from distance course in same year by a
student, therefore order impugned is bad in law and deserves to
be quashed.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner
has pursued two different degree programmes during the same
academic year. He further submits that Chhattisgarh Universities
Act, 1973, or the Ordinances framed thereunder, specifically
regulate eligibility for appearing in examinations and obtaining
degrees and the Ordinance 6 (Examination – General), para 16,
of the Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973 clearly provides that no
candidate shall appear in more than one degree examination or in
more than one subject for the Master’s degree (Previous or Final)
in the same academic year. He contends that the impugned order
rejecting candidature is legally valid, just, and proper and the
petition be dismissed at the threshold.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record with utmost circumspection.
6) The candidature of petitioner has been rejected solely on the
ground that she has obtained two degrees in the same academic
year, namely, first year of Master of Arts in English and B.Ed.
However, it is quite vivid that petitioner pursued Master of Arts in
English through distance learning mode whereas she pursued
B.Ed. Course as regular student. Also, the advertisement dated

4
9.3.2019 issued by the Directorate of Public Instruction does not
specify that a candidate who has obtained two degrees in the
same academic year is disqualified from consideration for
appointment to the post of Lecturer (English).
7) On a careful examination of the pleadings and submissions made
by the parties, this Court finds that the rejection of the candidature
of the petitioner solely on the ground that she possessed two
degrees in the same academic year is arbitrary, legally
unsustainable, and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The recruitment advertisement clearly prescribes the requisite
educational qualifications for the posts of Lecturer, namely a
postgraduate degree in the relevant subject and a Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.) degree. Nowhere in the advertisement it is
expressly stipulated that a candidate would be disqualified merely
because the two degrees were obtained in the same academic
year. The respondents cannot, therefore, introduce a
disqualification that was never contemplated at the time of issuing
the advertisement, as doing so would amount to altering the
eligibility criteria post hoc, which is impermissible under settled
legal principles.
8) The petitioner has pursued one degree in regular mode and the
other in distance, open, or online mode, in compliance with the
guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC),
including the 2012 notification and the 2022 Guidelines for

5
Pursuing Two Academic Programmes Simultaneously. The UGC
guidelines explicitly permit a student to pursue one programme in
regular mode concurrently with another programme in distance or
online mode. There is no statutory or regulatory bar in such cases.
The respondents’ reliance on Ordinance 6 of the Chhattisgarh
Universities Act, 1973, and on certain public notices issued by
UGC in 2016, cannot override the express terms of the
recruitment advertisement or the applicable UGC guidelines. The
Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner was
wrongly disqualified on a ground that is neither reflected in the
advertisement nor consistent with the UGC norms.
9) The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for
appointment to the post of Lecturer afresh, strictly in accordance
with the terms of the recruitment advertisement, the UGC
guidelines, and other applicable statutory provisions. The
respondents shall complete this process of fresh consideration
and pass appropriate orders within sixty (60) days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
10) It is clarified that while considering the petitioner’s candidature, no
new disqualification other than those explicitly provided in the
advertisement shall be imposed, and due regard shall be given to
the fact that the petitioner pursued one degree in regular mode
and another in distance/ODL/online mode in conformity with
recognized academic norms.

6
11) The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs are
awarded.

Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y a
Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.06.29
16:03:06
+0530