A recruitment challenge is premature absent actual noncompliance with binding qualification-relaxation rules.

The petitioner challenged the Directorate of Public Instructions’ advertisement dated 28 July 2026 for Assistant Teacher recruitment, alleging that it omitted a 5% relaxation in minimum academic qualifications for reserved-category candidates.

She also contended that the CG Vyapam application portal did not allow her to claim the relaxation, despite the advertisement’s statement that applicable NCTE notifications and court decisions would be followed.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in WA No. 501/2022 and a Directorate order concerning the 2019 recruitment cycle, she sought modification of the advertisement and portal, and protection against rejection of her candidature.

The State argued that the petition was premature because the advertisement required compliance with the applicable law and no cause of action had yet arisen.

1. Whether the advertisement’s omission of an express 5% academic-qualification relaxation for reserved-category candidates, together with the alleged portal restriction, warranted judicial intervention

2. Whether the petition was premature where the advertisement stated that the applicable court decisions and NCTE notification would be followed, but no failure to comply had yet occurred

The Court referred to the NCTE notification dated 29 July 2011 and the law laid down by the Division Bench in WA No. 501/2022, Abhishek Kumar Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, including the observation concerning a 5% academic-qualification relaxation for SC/ST/OBC candidates.

It held that, because the advertisement stated that the law laid down by the Court and the NCTE notification would be followed, the recruiting agency was bound to ensure strict compliance with them.

The Court did not decide the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to the relaxation.

The Court considered the State’s submission that the advertisement’s compliance clause covered the applicable court decisions and NCTE notification.

Since the recruiting agency had not yet acted contrary to those requirements, the Court found no present cause of action and treated the petition as premature.

It left open the petitioner’s right to seek relief if the agency later failed to comply.

It granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Court if non-compliance gives rise to a cause of action.