1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PEH'ITION ( S ) No.\^3_^ Of 2009 PETITIONER: / Smt. Mridula Rathore D/o Shri! Anuj Ratn Rathore, W/o Shri Raj Kumar Rathore, aged about 29years, R/o Purena Para, Gataura, VUlage and Post Gataura, Tehsil Masturi, Distriet BUaspi.tr (CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhatdsgarh, through the : Secretary, Departinent of Reveirue , Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The CoUectbr (Land Records) Bilaspnr (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS: ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BBNCH : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Writ Petition (81 No.4239/2(»9 PBTITIONBR RESP01SDENTS :. Mridula Rafhore Versus State of Chhattisgarh and anofher Appearance: Mr. Jitendra Pali, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. SunitaJain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORAL-ORDBR (Passed on 27.6.2011) Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved by rejection of her candidature for appointment to fhe post of Patwari. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the even if the certificate of diploma in computer application was not liable to be recognized, as per claus-(5) ofthe adyertisement (Amiexure P-7), petitioner's candidatru-e ought to have been considered for appointinent on ftie post of Patwan in scheduled area, as out of '96 posts advertised, number of posts of Patwari are situated in scheduled area. Leamed counsel fbr fhe petitioner relied uponithe judgtnent of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Ratre & Ors. Vs. State ofC.G. & Ors. [W^P. (SjNo.4461/09], decided on 9fl' April, 25010. He submits fhat from the reply offhe responderits, it is clear fhat the only operative reasons for rejection of the ^3Sa^r^":,/i^^^.yf- -2- ^ application was fhat the petitioner did not possess jtf recognized computer diploina certificate, but the other aspect with regard to consideration of candidature against posts situated in scheduled area with a condition to obtain diploma in one year was not adverted to. Leamed coiinsel fiufher submitted fhat nuinber of posts ofPatwad are sltuated in scheduled area and therefore case of fhe petitioner ought to be considered in accordance with the terms of advertlsement, partici.ilarly clause- (5) thereof. He submits fhat stUl posts are lyiag vacant and the petitioner candidature ought to be considered. 4. On the ofher hand, leamed connsel for the State/respondents submitted fhat fhe petitioner was not possessed of reqiiisite quali&cation 'as prescribed in (he advertiseiaent, because fhe certtficate of diploma m computer application obtained by fhe petitioner is not recognized. Leamed coi.lnsel submits fhat in the case of Ram Kumar Ratre (supra), this aspect has been dealt with and therefore the candidatiire of the petitioner has been rightly rejected as the petitioner was not possessed of the requisite qiialification. As far as fhe claim for consideration - against ftie posts situated in scheduled are is concemed, it is submitted that as fhe petitioner is resident of Masturi, which is outside the scheduled area, her candidature could not be cbnsidered for appointment to post of Patwan, situated in scheduled area. 5. In the case of Ram Kumar Ratre, it has been held ttlat the candidate should be selected for training in the scheduled area ; j);saiaL"iBi^f!'.i^, ^'y^ ":t "^'£^>^^. • ^ ••sseas^ j ~s s '••^^/ '•^~v-..,.^f/ -3- and not that (he candidate should be resident of scheduled area. The advertisement in fhe present case does not show fhat the caadidates should be resident ofschediiled area. Clause-(S) ofthe advertisenient (Annexiire P-7) clearly states that fhe relevant criteria for appointinent with condition of passing is not related to the place of resideritfrof the candidate, but relates to fhe place where Che post of Patwari is avaUable. Thus, lf tbe post of Patwari in a schedulalarea is required to be fiUed-up, appointment of a candidate should be made with the condition fhat he/she wiil have to obtain diploma in computer application within a period of one year.Thls aspect of fhe matter has not been dealt wifh by respondents in their retum, byt fhe only reason assigned in the retum is that fhe petitioner was not possessed of recognized certificate. Though leamed counsel for fhe State in her subinission stated fhat fhe petitioner is resident of non-scheduled area, therefore, not entitled to cdnsideration, in view of (he order passed by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Ratre, fhe said submission cannot be accepted. 6. In the result, this petition has to be allowed. The decision of the respondent to reject petitioner's candidature is declared illegal. The respondents shall consider fhe candidature offhe petitioner afresh in terms ofclause-(5) offhe_advertisement. .^B • • . 7. The petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated aboye. 8. No orders as to costs, EraB-een i,^ . . sd/- l^indraMohanShrivastav. 'e t^i A.t ^ ^ 3