$lngEe 9mm BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU R- @ Lf\, \ 3&1 l 20 1 1 ;_ WRIT PETITION TEE No. / Petitioner 1. / State of Chh‘atti'sgarh, Through Secretary Dep-tt of Pancha‘yat & Rural Development, D'au Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. / Secretary, Department of Higher > Education, ' Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur(CG) 3./ Secretary, Department, of General Administration, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 4. / Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat — RaipUr, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5. K Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat — Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226 l 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA' % Vishwaranjan Mishra, aged about 29 years S/o Shri Surendra Narayan Mlshra Nagar: §LIC Colony Road', Ralpur (CG) VERSUS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVAJ. Writ Petition ( S) No.3273 I201 1 PETITIONER‘ Vishwaranjan Mishra Versus ' RESPONDENTS State’of Chhattjsgarh and others : K (‘ Appearance Mr A N Bhaktaa cournel for tha patmoner Ms Sumta Jam, Panel Lawyer for the State, on advanca copy ORAL-ORDER ’ (Passed on 24.6.20 1 1) 1. eard on admission. H 2. This petition has been f11ed_ by‘the petitioner aggrieved by circular datedé 13 6 '20 1 1 (Annexure P4 1) and declaration (Annexure P— 1 1) I by winch the candidature of the petmoner for appomtment to the post of Sh1kshakarm1 Grade~ (Sanskrlt) has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in' the midst of process of selection, the State Govt. has issued impugied circular dated 13.6.2011, by which it \has been directed that the applications of only those candidates who fulfill the prescribed ' educational qualification in the concerned subjects be accepted and the applieations of those who are possessed of equivalent qualihcation may hot be accepted. r t A perusal of the circular date 13.6.20 1 shows that the Stat Govt. has only direct€d to accept applications of those who are possessed of the prescribed qualification and to reject those who are possessed of Quamication which ar claimed to be equivalent to the prescribed qualiflcation. I do not iind any illegality in the l i at 1 r . any equivalent qualihcation to be accepjted. In the absence of the rule permitting other qualiiications claimed to be equivalent as qualihcation for the purpose of appomtment, the State Govt.’ cannot be faulted. said direction of the State Govt. because the rules do not pennit 5. As far as the submission’of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to rejection of candidature 1s concerned the case of the petitioner is that the degee possessed by the petltloner 1s 1n: related subject Le. Sanskrit.@e circular of the State Govt. issued on 13.6.201 1 does not deal with each and every individual case, but only lays down that degree in concerned subject alone would be accepted. Therefore, Whether the degree possessed by‘ the petitioner is in the concerned subject is a matter for consideration. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the Collector under the provision of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karim (Recruitment and Conditions of Serv1ces) Rules, 2007 Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that his caseis covered by circular dated 13.6.201 1 as he isi‘possessed of degree in related subject by virtue of being posseSsed of degree of B.A.-Sanskrit (Classic) 8s M.A- Sanskrit t ; (Classic), can be raised by the petitioner before the Appellate , Authority. .In View of the aforesaid discussions,i this petition is finally l, disposed of, reserving liberty to'the petitoner to hle appeal before : the Appellate Authority under the provision of Clihattisgarh ‘ Panchayat Shiksha Kamii (Recruitment and Conditions ofi Services) Rules, 2007, who shall decide the same on its owni merits and in accordance withl w. l 1