c ISS^SK&sSI- ;;^t^-"Si;i!^^'^' INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. ^•fj> /2006 / PETITIONER SANDEEP KUMAR SINHA aged..IS^S/o ^hftJ...iim-UJ.L.&UM Hfl ^O^^'f^T^'"^-" Vill & Post B-Jamgaon, Tah. Balbd, ^"Mofc--" Distt.-Durg (C.G.) \-oJ •^"^s^^y^" ^•^•'-^"^0. rt* RESPONDENTS ^ : VERSUS 1. The State Govt of C.G. Through Secretary, GAD, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Secretary Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SiNGLEBENCH : HON'BLEMR. SATiSH K. AGNiHOTRI, J. Petitioner Respondents WRJT PETiTiOJM NQ.1S4S OF 2006 Sandeep Kumar Sinha versus The State Govt. of C.G. another Present : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, counsei forthe petitioner. Mr. AJay Dwivedl, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.l/State. Mr. H.B.Agrawal, Senjor Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, counsel Tor respondent No-2. (Passed on 9'" ofOctober, 2006) Learned counsel appearing for the peationer suiamits that the petitioner made an application pursuant to the advenisement dated M-8-2005 (Annexurs P-2) issued by Generai Administration Departmsnt of State of Chhattlsgarh for appoiniment on the post of Assistant Grade-lli. According to the petitioner, the petitioner obtained 264 marks in the said examination whlch fe hiyhest in the written test, however, the petitioner \vas not called for interview, notwithstanding the fact that he secured highest marks in the writtsn examination. On enquiry, the petitioner Vi/as informed that the petitioner was not calfed for interview because his Hindl typing examination certificate v/as not from a recognized instltute of the State ofChhattlsgarh. •-f— ^r^ 2. Being aggrieved, the petifioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner as selected and She respondents be further directed to permit the petitioner to face the interview in the examination. 3. Mr. Ajay Shriyastava, learned counsei appsaring for ths petitioner, submits that a recognized institute does not mean rscognized by State of Chhattisgarh aione. Th®petitioner has obtained the certifscate from the NAC-MiT (Nationwide Council for Muitipurpose Education and Information Technology), a private institute, vvhich, according to the petitioner, is recognized by Union Territory of Dei'ni. The counsel further submite that the pstitioner cannot be deciined permission to face interview when the institute, as stated above, is recognized by Union Territory of Delhi, but not recognlzed by the State of Chhattisgarh. 4. Mr. H.B.Agrawa!, iearned Senior Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, iearned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 sfates in the return of respondent No.2 as undsr:- Para 5.3 "That ths contsnts of this para is wrong, hence dsnied, !t is denied that the answerins rsspondent has done any unjust to the petltioner because the reguired eligibl!iti/ was mads ciear in the advertlsement and the petitioner himself admits that the dipioma is not from institution recognized by the Chhattisgarh Government, therefore he cannot ask to adopt the dipioma of New Delhi State in Chhattisgarh State. The list of recognized university is fiied as Annexure R-2-1. The ietter datsd 7.4.2005 regarding .11 (^ 5. recognized institution of computer training issued by State Government is flled as Annexure R-2-2. The ietter by Secretary of respondent no.2 and Sscrstary of State Government G.A.D. Department dated 16.6.2006, js fiied as Annexure R-2-3." Having heard isarned counsel for the parties and after perusing records appended to the petition as also to the return, it appears that admittediy the petitioner has obtained typing pass csrtificate from an institution which is not a recognized institution by the State of Chhattissarh. The required condition was the recognized institute. it is clear that the recognized institute means recognized institute by the State of Chhattisgarh not by any othsr State Government except by the Union of India. It is not the case of the petitioner that the institute wherefrom he has obtained his certificate is a recognized institute of Union of India. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner has no right to appointment. Even otherwise, in the present case, the petitioner has not obtained typing pass certificate from rscognized institute of State of Chhattisgarh, which is a requisite conditlon for appearing in the examination. Thus, the contention oft'ne petitioner is rejected. 7. The petition is devoid of merit. Accordingiy, it deserves to be and is dismissed. No order as to costs. —— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Qooal