Chhattisgarh HC Upholds English-Medium Requirement For 1,812 SAGES Contract Jobs, Rejects Hindi-Medium Candidates’ Challenge

In brief

The question

Whether Clause 8 of the advertisement, requiring candidates to have studied in English Medium from Class VI through postgraduate level, was arbitrary or unreasonable given the nature of the posts.

The court held

The Court held that no sufficient ground had been established to invalidate Clause 8 of the advertisement.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit at the motion stage.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged an advertisement dated 29 September 2026 for 1,812 contractual posts in Swami Atmanand Excellent English Medium Schools (SAGES).

¶ 1

Clause 8 required candidates, except Hindi and Sanskrit teachers, to have completed the requisite educational qualifications from Class VI through postgraduate level in English Medium.

¶ 2

The petitioners argued that this requirement was absent from the applicable recruitment rules and NCTE Regulations and was discriminatory against Hindi-medium candidates under Articles 14, 15 and 16.

¶ 3

The State maintained that the condition was a reasonable eligibility requirement for posts in English-medium schools.

¶ 10

The petition was dismissed at the motion stage.

¶ 10–11

02Issues

i.Whether Clause 8 of the advertisement, requiring candidates to have studied in English Medium from Class VI through postgraduate level, was arbitrary or unreasonable given the nature of the posts.

¶ 4, 8

ii.Whether the condition was discriminatory or contrary to the applicable recruitment rules or constitutional guarantees.

¶ 4, 9

03Law Applied

An employer may prescribe essential qualifications and eligibility conditions suited to the nature and requirements of a post, provided they are reasonable and do not contravene statutory provisions or constitutional mandates.

¶ 5–6

In Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362, the Supreme Court held that the employer determines the qualifications required for a post, and courts should not rewrite clear eligibility conditions unless they are ambiguous or contrary to rules or law.

¶ 7

The Court also considered the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2026, and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2012; it found no specific statutory prohibition against the advertisement’s medium requirement.

¶ 2, 9

04Reasoning

The Court treated the English-medium requirement as an eligibility condition tailored to recruitment for English-medium schools.

¶ 8

It found that the condition could reasonably serve the purpose of ensuring candidates had an educational background relevant to those institutions.

¶ 8

The absence of an express medium-specific condition in the recruitment rules did not, without more, invalidate the advertisement, because the petitioners had not shown a direct conflict with any statutory provision.

¶ 9

Nor did the fact that many candidates in the State had studied in Hindi Medium, by itself, establish a violation of Articles 14, 15 or 16.

¶ 9

Applying the limited scope of judicial review over an employer’s recruitment requirements, the Court declined to interfere.

¶ 6–7, 10