Preferential acceptance of CGTET results post-deadline over CTET results constitutes arbitrary discrimination under Article 14.

The petitioners participated in a recruitment process conducted by CG-VYAPAM for the positions of Teacher and Assistant Teacher

During counseling, the petitioners were declared ineligible because they could not produce their Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) certificates prior to the cut-off date of 21.11.2019/29.11.2019

The petitioners' CTET results were declared on 27.12.2019

However, candidates who appeared for the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CGTET), whose results were declared later on 04.01.2020, were permitted to submit their certificates and were considered eligible for appointment

The petitioners challenged the rejection orders dated 23.01.2021 and 02.03.2021, alleging discriminatory treatment

1. Whether the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily by rejecting CTET candidates while accepting CGTET candidates whose results were declared after the CTET results

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointment despite the technical breach of the cut-off date for document submission

The court primarily applied the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandate equal opportunity in public employment and prohibit arbitrary state action

It further referenced Article 21 regarding the protection of life and personal liberty as a basis for challenging the unfair recruitment process

The court examined the timeline of result declarations against the stipulated cut-off date of 21.11.2019. It noted that while the petitioners' CTET results (27.12.2019) and the CGTET results (04.01.2020) both fell after the cut-off, the State specifically accommodated CGTET candidates while disqualifying CTET candidates

The court found that the State's return failed to provide a specific plea or justification for this differential treatment

Since the CGTET results were declared even later than the CTET results, the court reasoned that the State’s decision to favor one set of similarly situated candidates over another was devoid of a rational nexus and was, therefore, arbitrary and violative of the right to equality in public employment

It set aside the impugned orders dated 23.01.2021 and 02.03.2021 pertaining to the petitioners. The petitions were allowed, and the court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners for appointment to the posts of Teacher and Assistant Teacher, provided that such posts remain vacant