Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Rejection of Teacher Candidate After Notice Issued on Same Day as Verification
The High Court found that issuing a document-verification notice on the very date fixed for verification violated the State's own circular requiring 20 days' advance notice by Registered Post.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has quashed an order rejecting a candidate's claim for appointment as Assistant Teacher (Science) after finding that the District Education Officer, Dhamtari, sent the document-verification notice to her on the same day the verification was scheduled. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, sitting singly, held that this conduct was “arbitrary and illegal” and directly contrary to a State Government circular that requires at least 20 days' advance communication by Registered Post. The court has directed the District Education Officer to consider the petitioner's case for appointment within 120 days.
The Recruitment Process and What Went Wrong
Shashi Kiran Jaiswal, a resident of Raipura, District Raipur, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) in response to an advertisement dated 09.03.2019 issued by the Department of School Education, Chhattisgarh, for filling vacant posts of Teachers, Lecturers, Assistant Teachers, and Laboratory Assistants. She participated in the recruitment process and secured 80.102 marks out of 150.
Document verification for Jaiswal was scheduled by Respondent No. 5 — the District Education Officer, Dhamtari — on 11.03.2022. The critical problem: the communication informing her of that date was also issued on 11.03.2022, the same day. She could not appear. Her representation to the authorities was rejected by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instruction, vide order dated 31.05.2022, without assigning any reasons. That rejection order became the primary target of her writ petition.
At the time of filing, pursuant to an interim order dated 29.06.2022, one post of Assistant Teacher (Science) T-Cadre, Dhamtari in the OBC category was kept vacant by the court.
The Circular the State Did Not Follow
The central legal question was whether the advertisement or any governing rule required Jaiswal to check the Department's web portal for her verification date. The State's counsel argued that the date was uploaded on the Directorate of Public Instruction's website, and it was the candidate's responsibility to track it. The State also pointed to an application Jaiswal moved on 06.05.2022 before Respondent No. 2, where she stated she could not ascertain the date due to ill health — and argued this contradicted her position that no adequate notice was given.
Senior Advocate Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, appearing for Jaiswal, drew the court's attention to the State Government circular dated 15.09.2020. Clause 4 of that circular specifically provides two things: first, that selected candidates shall be informed of the verification date through Registered Post; and second, that such communication shall be issued at least 20 days before the scheduled date. The circular also provides that a candidate who fails to participate in the verification process shall be afforded the opportunity to make a representation, which the authority shall consider before granting a fresh date.
Justice Pandey examined the original advertisement and found no instruction directing candidates to check the web portal for counselling or document-verification dates. That factual finding disposed of the State's portal-based defence. The court then turned to the circular. It was not disputed that the notice was issued on 11.03.2022 — the very same date as the scheduled verification. The 20-day advance notice requirement under Clause 4 was plainly not met. The rejection order of 31.05.2022, which was issued without reasons, could not stand.
Court's Reasoning on Arbitrariness
Justice Pandey was direct. The obligation to communicate the verification date through Registered Post at least 20 days in advance lay with Respondent No. 3, the Joint Director, Directorate of Public Instruction. That obligation was not discharged. Issuing the notice on the very date fixed for verification rendered the entire exercise meaningless for the candidate. The court characterised the action of Respondent No. 5 as arbitrary and illegal.
The argument that Jaiswal's letter of 06.05.2022, citing ill health, was inconsistent with her petition did not alter the analysis. Whatever the reason she offered in that representation, the undisputed fact remained: the notice reached her — or was issued — on the day of the verification itself. A candidate cannot be expected to attend a process when informed of it only on the day it occurs.
The Deputy Director's order of 31.05.2022 rejecting her representation without reasons was quashed.
Outcome
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 31.05.2022 passed by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure P/1) was quashed. Respondent No. 5, the District Education Officer, Dhamtari, was directed to consider Jaiswal's case for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) as per the preference given by her. The entire exercise is to be completed within 120 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.