3 C . cF^Voa'/ ^a^^-"""" ^^'".'. IN THE HONftBLB HIGH CDURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P« N0. _^23^__/2005 ^ ^ PETITION2R RESPONDENTS »- Vijay Kumar Das son of R^Bi Das, aged about 25 years, Resident of village Bartiyabhatha, Post Bhanwar- pur, Tah* Basna, Districfc Mahsamund* VERSUS s- /. ^.c^ ¥o ^ .o'> 1) Stafce of Ghliatfcisgarh Through- The Secretary Department of Revenue» Raipur (C.G»)« ovs^w <^^ ^SL ^2) The Collector,(Ijand Record) Maha samund (C<»G<,} <» ^" WRIT PETITION UNDERA RTICLE 226 OE* THE CONSTITUTION OE1 XNDIA_FOR ISSUANCS OF APPROPRIATE (S)» ORDER(S) AM) DIRECTION(S) TO DQ JUSTICE IN THE MATTSR» '- f .-slilia 1 ^^^-^ n .^y' ji '"^^r^ s^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Prltjnker Diwaker) Writ Petitlon No. 4722 of 2005 PETETIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Vijay Kumar Das State of Chhattisgarh and another IIw Shri Malay Bhaduri, Advocate forthe petition.er. Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for State/respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDSA &RD_EE (07.10.2010) Grievance of the petltioner is that pursuant to the advertisement dsted 21.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) he had filed his form for the post of Patwari and admit card (Annexure P-2) was also issued to him for the examination to be heid on 21.8.2005. According to the petitioner despite issuance of admit card, he was not permitted to appear in the written examination and therefore he be granted the foilowing retiefs: 7.1 Kindly be issued a writ in the nature of certiorari, by quashing the order of djs-quaiificatlon of the petitloner in the written test examination of Patwari. 7.2 Any other reiief which deem to fit also be granted to the petjtioner. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 21.7.2005 an advertisement (Annexure P-1) was Issued by the Colfector, Mahasamund inviting applications for the post of Patwarl and the last date for submittlng the said form and the date of written examination were 30.7.2005 and 21.8.2005 respectiveiy. As per C!ause-2 of the advertisement a candidate must have passed 10th Board Examination or 11th Board examination from the old pattern and should ateo have the Rnowledge of computer work like Data Entry. CSause-3 of the advertisement emphasizes about the certificates which were to be attached along with the application form and as per C!ause-3(i) a candidate is required to Ul: B m Stt m submit the attested photo copies in respect of his educational qualificatjon. After submjttlng the form, the petitioner was issued admit card to appear in the written examlnation to be held on 21.8.2005. According to the petitioner he was not permitted to appear Sn the said examinatjon on the ground that he had not submitted relevant certificates in respect of hls computer course whereas he was not required to file any such document along wlth the application form. 3. Counse! for the petltioner submits that on the date of examlnation i.e. on 21.8.2008 a representation (Annexure P-3) was made by the petltloner to the ColSector but to no avail. He submits that in the examination form itselfthe petitioner had disdosed about the fact that he had obtained Diploma in computer course from Gaiaxy Computer Education Centre, Bhopal for the period 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 and had also attached the relevant certificates along with his form. He submits that once all the documents were fited by the petitioner, the respondents were not justified in not ailowing the petitioner to appear in the said examination. 4. Opposing the arguments "rt has been put forth by the State counsei that the petitioner had not filed any document in respect of his computer qualification and therefore respondents were justified in rejecting his candidature. He submits that the petltioner has flled two rejoinders dated 10.07.2009 and 6.9.2010 and contrary averments have been made in the said two rejoinders. State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court on Paragraph-1 of the first rejoinder dated 10.7.2009 In which it has been stated by the petitloner that as there was no instruction In the prescribed form to attach computer training certificate along with theappiication form, the petitioner did not submit the same with the application form. However, in Paragraph-2 of the second rejoinder fi!ed on 6.9.2010 the petitioner has stated that the document in respect of computer course was also attached along with the appiication form but the same has been either misplaced or deiiberately removed from the application form by the respondents just to harm the petitioner. State Counsei further submits that submitting of N^^f5 y '^•y--, .1,1^ II i8 B the said document was mandatory because without submitting the same, the educattonaj qualifjcation of the candidate cannot be adjudjcated. 5. Hsard counsej for the partles and perused the materiai avaliabSe on record. 6. From Clause-2 of the advertisement it is apparent that the mlnsmum quaSsfscatton for a candldate was required to have at Seast 10th c!ass pass or 11th cSass from old pattern and further he was required to have the knowiedge of computer work Jlke Data Entry. In Clause-3(i) of the advertisement it was mentioned that a candidate was required to submit attested photo copies of original certiflcates pertaining to his educational qualification. Though it has not been specificaily mentioned in the advertisement that the candldate is required to attach the certificate of computer course but if Clause-3(i) of the advertisement is taken into consideration aSong wlth its object, it can be said that the candidates were required to attach the certificate of computer education along with the form. If no such document is annexed along with the appiication form it would be difficujt for the respondents to judge the authenticity of the said qualificatjon of a candidate. 7. !n the first rejoinder dated 10.07.2009 the petitjoner has stated that fiiing of any such document was not necessary whereas in the second rejoinder dated 6.9.2010 he has stated that the said document was filed by him along with the form and the same must have been misplaced or deliberately removed by the respondents. The petjtioner has thus taken two contrary stands and there is no documentary evidence on record to show that the petltioner had ever attached the certificate of Diploma jn computer course along with the appiication form. Atong with the second rejoinder the petitioner has aiso fiSed the copy of the appljcation form filled by him vlde Annexure P-6 and in coiumn-9 he has stated that he possesses the decree of B.Sc. and just below thls he has mentioned that he is filing the relevant certlficates to this effect. However, in column-8 he has mentioned that ^o he has obtained Diptoma in computer course from Galaxy Computer Education Centre, Bhopal for the period 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003 but there is no mention in the said coiumn that any certificate was attached by him to this effect along with the form. 8. Considering ail the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court flnds no force in the argument of the petitioner that filing of any such certificate in respect of computer course was not necessary. Furthermore the petitioner has prayed for the relief of issuance of writ of certlorari for quashing the order of djsquaijfication whereas no such order has been passed by the respondents. That apart, the petition was filed In the year 2005, there was no Interim order In favour of the petitioner, the seiection process has aiready been completed and therefore no relief can be granted to the petltioner. The petltlon is dismissed accordingly. |- I Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 1