N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHI-lATTISGARH AT ‘B'ILASPUR __W.P. (S) N0.« 30 g /2oo9 ‘ K ET’ITIONER , / ARVIND GEDAM S /o Shr1 Shlrsagar Eedam aged about 26 years . Trended Teacher for Mental Retardatlon 1n the office o ‘ the supenntendeni/ Mental Retardatlon student spec1a.1 school Bljapur D1str1ct Bljapur [C G ] R/ o — C/o ShriShirsagar Gedam L.I.G. / 271, H.U.D’.C.O. Bhilai District Durg [C.G.) Versus ‘ RESPONDENTS : ,/ 1: The D1rector, _ Panchayat and Soc1a1 welfare C G Mahanadl Khand, Mantralaya .: Raipur (Cm The Deputy Du'ector, _ 1n the office of Dlstnct Offlce of Panchayat lst Bljapur (CG) he Supermtendent \\ ‘ . ‘ r- ‘ J ffiee of the Supermtendent / M, etardatlon student se a1 school V lstnct Bljapur [C G] I l t The State of Chhattisgarh,‘ Through: - The Secretary, Panchayat and Social welfare, D.K.S.BhaWan Raipur (C.G.)» nd Soc1al welfare Bljapur, _,D P T V ,O a1 3‘ R p 4 ‘ " D a WRI PEITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR NATURE OF MANDAMUS§ CER‘ etc. AND / OR FOR ORDER DIRECTIONS IN NATURE OF WRIT. ISSUANCE OF WRITE IN FIORARI ,PROHABITAION, v AND / OR DIECTION / T T <55 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG H : BILA$?UR ! SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SI-IRI MANINDRA MOI-IAN SI-IVASTAVA IR J. 5 Writ Petition (S) No.308/2009 i Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V. ‘Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL—ORDER (Passed on 28.6.20 1 1) Heard. 1. This petition has been tiled by‘ the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 23rd December, .2008 (Annexure P—13) by which, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Trained Teacher (Mental Retardation) has been cancelled. 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in the [7 petition are gthat in response to the advertisement issued by the Directorate fof Panchayat and Social Welfare on 1.7.2008 for appointment to Various posts, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Trained Teacher (Mental Retardation). p The petitioner submitted; various certificates to' show that he fulfills the 1mm1mum eligibility criteria and qualification for s i l 1" / i 1 i‘hppointment tothe post. r Jinan p-‘_..nu PETITIONER Arvind Gedam Versus RESPONDENTS ‘ State of Chhattjsgarh and others Appearancc‘: i 3. Leamfed counsel for the petitioner su mits that the petitioner ubmitted the certificate of paseing P G. examination as also certificate of diploma in Vocational I aiming 8s Employment (Mental Retardation) 1ssued by the N uonal lnsmtwe for the Mentally Handicapped Secunderabad he Peuuoner was calleo for scrutiny of documents Vlde letter 1‘ated 12th August 2008 (Annexure P— 10), pursuant to wluch the‘ petitioner submitted h1s testimomal certificates before the competent authority, whlch i were scrutinized and thereafter the petitloner was appomted Vlde , order dated 29th August, 2008 (Annexure P—ll) on the post of ' Trained Teacher (Mental Retardation} Undisputedly, a compliant was made agamst the appomtment of the petitioner allegng that the petitioner 1s not possessed of the mmimum quahflcation of Tramed Teacher (Mental Retardation) whereafter an mqun'y was made by the Director and Vide impugned order dated 23rd December,2008 (Annexure 13-13) the petitioners appomtment has been cancelled and he has been terminated from service. f i 4. Assailing the correctness and validlty of the action and order leading to termmation of petitioner s semces, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner fulfilled the _ educational qualification prescribed 1n the advertlsement which is also in accord With the statutory prescription for the post under the relevant rules Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted - that the petitioner obtained diploma in Vocational Training and M Employment (Mental Retardation), which is the diploma in a r J" ‘1 ' subject relating to Mental Retardation He submits that either in i i f >.\\ S the adverti$ement or in the rules, there is no other prescription to prescribe a'hy particular branch of Mental Retardation subject as the eligiblel qualification. He also refers to sy l abus of the course, which he Epursued to obtain diploma certificate, which also l ‘ describe as diploma in Special Education R‘Mental Retardation) prescribed by Nat1onal Institute for Mentally‘ Handmapped It 1s submitted that the petltloner had submltt‘ed the documents mcludmg the test1mon1al certificates for scrutiny which were ‘i a J l \ t, examined and thereafter the petitioner was appointed. Therefore, now the respondents cannot again enter into in the process of re- assessment of petltioner s eligibility It is lastly submitted that the impugned action of termination involves c1v11 consequences and the action was initiated on certain complaint but neither the copy of complaint was given] nor the petitioner was afforded any opportunity of; hearing before coming’to the conclusion that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is not acceptable. p 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the requirement of the rule incorporated in the advertisement in the matter of appointment to the post of Trained f: , Teacher (Mentail Retardation) is that the candidate should be possessed of gaduate degee/certificate from recognized university and also diploma/degree in Mental Retardation subject. He submitted that the diploma has been awarded to the petitioner in respect of Vocational Training and Employment i-v/ /\ (Mental Retardation) which cannot be said to be diploma in i J Mental Retardation subject It is elaborately submitted that such f .K Kaip _ _ :p’ l I ‘ ‘diplomai certificate is not acceptable V an institution for imparting education, but would be relevant only Where mentally retardedi persons are provided voc tional training and employment. 6. It is not in dispute that the qualiiication prescribed for a appointrnent to the post of Trained Teache}r in the adVertisement l is in accord with the statutory, prescription l under the CG. Panchayat and Samaj Seva (Kaxyapalik) SeVa Bharti Niyam, 2008. This has also been mentioned in the impugned order dated 23. 12.2008 (Annexure P-13). 7. A perusal iof the advertisement shows that the candidate is required t:o possess diploma/degee in Mental Retardation subject. Therefore, a diploma from recognized institution in any Mental Retardation subject would be covered. Learned counsel for the respondents could not bring to the notice of the Court, any provision Jin the prevalent recruitment rules prescribing quahiicanons or anv other matenal to show that any particular branch of subject- Mental Retardation alone was to be cons1dered - as eligible qiualification. A perusal of diploma certificate obtained by the petitioner show that the petitioner has been awarded diploma in Vocational Training and Employment (Mental Retardation). The syllabus of the course, which the petitioner pursued before he was awarded diploma, placed on record as - // Annexure iP—14, also shows that the diploma which haS'been - // l granted has been described as diploma in Special Education r i r (Mental; Retardation) by National Instituted fbr the Mentally Handicapped Therefore the diploma in Vocational Training and Employment (Mental Retardation) 1s only a branch or spec1al educatlon 1n the subject of Mental Retarda on 8. The impugned order itself proceeds on the assumption that the required qualification should be d1ploma 1n Spec1a1 Educatlo Havmg wso held the dlploma 1n Vocatlonal Trainlng and Employment (Mental RetardationJ Wh1ch has been described as diploma: in Special Education (Mental Retardation) by the National Institute for Mentally Handicapped, apparently is diploma in Special Education (Mental Retardation). 9. The testimanial, certincates particularly the diploma certiiicate of the petitioner was taken into consideration by the Selection Committee iand the Appointing Authority and was also scrutinized before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner fulfills the minimum ieligibility‘ criteria and possessed of prescribed qualiiication. It is only thereafter that the petitioner was found tit and was appointed. To this Court, therefore, it appears that the respondents, later on, on some compliant suddenly changed or at least rev1ewed their earlier dec1s1on to hold that the pet1tioner 1s not possessed of the required qualification In the absence of there being; any prows1on under the law prescriblng some other qualidcation the respondents are now stOpped by application of , / /l prinCiple of estoppel nom changing their stand to now hold that the petitioner does not fulfill the prescribed qualification l a “WW n ‘ I 10‘ In View of what has been examined by this Court with reference to prescribed qualification I have to hold that the petitioner did i fuliill the minimum ehgiblllty cmtema Tld qualiflcation fer appomtment to the post of Trained Teacher (Mental Retardatlon) In addition, the petitioner was not giveni any notice and the respondents entertained some complaint behind the back of the petitioner to airive at the dec1s1on that the petitioner does not possess the requisite quahiication. .In View of the aforesaid disoussions, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the respondents to hold that the petitioner does not fulfill the minimum elig'bility qualification is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. _ . 12. Accordingly, €the impugied order dated 23rd December, 2008' (Annexure PE—13) is hereby dictated illegal and quashed The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the wages in respect of the period during which he remained out of employment. g ?ff ‘ l3. The petitioner} is accordingly partly allowed. l l Sdl- .‘ rV Manlndra Mohan Shrlvastava J U D G E i » r i 14. No order as t costs. o