TARUN KUMAR VAISHNAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010416102026 2026:CGHC:45249
NAFR
JYOTI
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
JYOTI SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.28
17:55:50 +0530
WPS No. 7678 of 2026
1. Tarun Kumar Vaishnav S/o Dilip Kumar Vaishnav, Aged About 28
Years R/o Manki Awas Yojna Number - 47, Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2. Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Ganesh Kumar Sahu, Aged About 39
Years R/o Purana Risda Balco Nagar District Korba (C.G.)
3. Barkha Soni D/o Sanat Kumar Soni Aged About 28 Years R/o. Ward
No. 69 Sundaram Vihar Colony, Dewangan Bada Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
4. Manish Kumar Setiya S/o Shyamlal Sethiya Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Chitalanka Kalarpara, Tehsil Dantewada, District Dantewada
(C.G.)
5. Mangleshwar S/o Sushil Kumar Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No.6,
Village Sarbhoka, Block Baikunthpur, District Koria (C.G.)
6. Tejeswini Sahu D/o Madho Prasad Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o
Dal Dal Sioni Mowa, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)
7. Namrata Sahu D/o Hiraman Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o
Goverdhan Nagar, Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
8. Arun Kumar Patel S/o Pitobaso Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o
Village Tangar, Post Goda, Block Sarangarh District Sarangarh Bilaigarh
(C.G.)
9. Sanjay Kumar S/o Ghasiya Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village
Negurdih, Post Office Kirit, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa
(C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur
District Raipur (C.G.)

2
2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction Directorate Of Public
Instruction, Indrwati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. along with
Ms. Apurva Nigam, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
27/10/2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
advertisement dated 29.09.2026, issued by respondent No. 2 for
recruitment to 1,812 contractual posts in Swami Atmanand Excellent
English Medium Schools (SAGES), is illegal and arbitrary insofar as
it restricts eligibility to candidates who have studied in English
Medium. It is contended that neither the Chhattisgarh School
Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre)
Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026, nor the Chhattisgarh Civil
Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012, nor the NCTE
Regulations prescribe any such medium-specific eligibility condition.
The impugned condition is discriminatory against candidates
educated in Hindi Medium, who constitute a substantial majority in
the State, and violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the impugned
advertisement be quashed and the respondents be directed to issue
a fresh advertisement permitting eligible candidates educated in
both Hindi and English Medium to participate in the recruitment
process.

3
2. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and
submits that the impugned advertisement dated 29.09.2026 has
been issued in accordance with the requirements of Swami
Atmanand Excellent English Medium Schools (SAGES). It is
contended that the condition prescribing English Medium
education is reasonable and necessary to ensure that the
selected candidates are capable of imparting education effectively
in English Medium. Learned State counsel further submits that
Clause 8 of the impugned advertisement specifically provides that
the applicant must have passed the requisite educational
qualifications from Class VI to postgraduate level through English
Medium, except in the case of Lecturers/Teachers of Hindi and
Sanskrit, for whom the said condition is not mandatory. It is
argued that the competent authority is empowered to prescribe
appropriate eligibility conditions keeping in view the nature and
requirements of the posts, and that the impugned condition is
neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Learned State counsel also
submits that the absence of an express medium-specific
classification in the Chhattisgarh School Education Services
(Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and
Promotion Rules, 2026, or the Chhattisgarh Civil Services
(Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012, does not, by itself, render
the eligibility condition stipulated in the advertisement illegal. It is
contended that the recruitment rules prescribe the requisite
qualifications for appointment, whereas the impugned

4
advertisement specifies the eligibility conditions considered
necessary for recruitment to the particular institutions, subject to
their consistency with the applicable statutory rules and
regulations. It is further submitted that the petitioners have failed
to establish that Clause 8 is in direct conflict with any specific
statutory provision or regulation governing the recruitment in
question. Accordingly, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of
the writ petition, being devoid of merit.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
4. The principal question for consideration is whether the condition
stipulated in Clause 8 of the impugned advertisement, requiring
candidates to have passed the requisite educational qualifications
from Class VI to postgraduate level through English Medium, is
arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to the applicable recruitment
rules ?
5. It is an established principle of law that the employer is competent
to prescribe the minimum qualifications and eligibility conditions
for recruitment, keeping in view the nature and requirements of
the posts, provided that such conditions are reasonable and do
not contravene any statutory provision or constitutional mandate.
6. It is noteworthy to mention here that the prescription of
qualifications for a particular post is a matter of recruitment policy,
and the State, as an employer, is competent to determine the
qualifications required for eligibility, having regard to the nature of

5
the post, the duties to be discharged, the requisite aptitude, and
the relevance and content of the course of study. The requirement
of qualifications is also a matter to be determined by the
competent recruiting authority and not by the Court in the exercise
of its power of judicial review. Matters relating to administrative
exigencies and the requirements of public services fall within the
domain of policy-making, and the scope of judicial review in such
matters is limited.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Maharashtra Public
Service Commisson Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Ors.
reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362 in Civil Appeal No. 4597 of 2019
at para 9 has held as under:-
“9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a
post are for the employer to decid decide. The
employer may prescribe additional or desirable
qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is
the employer who is best suited to decide the
requirements a candidate must possess according to
the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The
court cannot lay down by an the conditions of
eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with
regard b to desirable qualifications being on a par with
the essential eligibility by interpretive re-writing of the
advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall
outside the domain of judicial review. If the language

6
of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court
cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an
ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any
rules or law the matter has to go back to the
appointing authority after appropriate orders, to c
proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the
court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of
the appointing authority to decide what is best for the
employer and interpret the conditions of the
advertisement contrary to the plain language of the
same.”
8. In the present case, the recruitment in question is specifically
intended for appointment to various contractual posts in Swami
Atmanand Excellent English Medium Schools (SAGES). Clause 8
of the impugned advertisement expressly provides that candidates
must have passed the requisite educational qualifications from
Class VI to postgraduate level through English Medium, while
exempting Lecturers/Teachers of Hindi and Sanskrit from this
requirement. Having regard to the nature of the institutions and
the medium of instruction, the requirement of English Medium
education cannot, by itself, be held to be arbitrary or
unreasonable, as it seeks to ensure that the candidates possess
an educational background relevant to the functioning of the said
institutions.

7
9. The contention of the petitioners that the applicable recruitment
rules do not expressly prescribe any distinction between
candidates educated in Hindi Medium and English Medium is also
insufficient, by itself, to invalidate the impugned condition. The
petitioners have not demonstrated, on the material placed before
this Court, that Clause 8 is in direct conflict with any specific
statutory provision prohibiting the prescription of such a condition.
Further, the mere fact that a substantial number of candidates in
the State have studied in Hindi Medium does not, in itself,
establish a violation of Articles 14, 15 or 16 of the Constitution of
India. The validity of an eligibility condition must be examined with
reference to its object, reasonableness and consistency with the
applicable statutory framework.
10. In view of the aforesaid legal position and having regard to the
nature of the posts advertised, this Court finds no sufficient
ground to interfere with the impugned advertisement dated
29.09.2026.
11. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is
dismissed at the motion stage itself.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
Jyoti