w“ {£(cn- G) L © $mg§@ gm‘mh IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.w«?§§ /2009 y Sanat Kumar Naik S/o Shri Khemram Naik, aged about 29 years, R/o village Gajmuda, P.O. Kirodimal Nagar, District Raigarh (c.G.). PETITIONER VERSUS /. :- 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya at D.K‘.S. Bhawan, RESPONDENTS Raipur (C.G.). (f The Collector (Land Records), Rajgarh (C.G.). 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , V , 1 7 u \ -'{I 3* SGARH AT BILASPUR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI WRIT PETITION (Si No. 4555 0f 2009 Santosh Kumar Vishvakarma PETITIONER : State of Chhattisgaxh 6a another. RESPONDENTS W.P.(S) No. 3882, 3883, 388 448 VERSUS ALONGWITH 4, 3885, 3898, 3999, 4123, 4199, 4482, 4438 of 2009 3, 4484, 4485, 4486, 4489, 4865, 3684 and Post for pronouncement of judgment on X é..day fix of March, 2010. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge + ; W‘- é? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION LS) No. 4555 of 2009 Santosh Kumar Vishvakarma VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh 8a another. ALONG WITH W.P.(S) No. 3882, 3883, 3884, 3885, 3898, 3999, 4123, 4199, 4482, 4483, 4484, 4485, 4486, 4489, 4865, 3684 and 4438 of 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, Shri Jitendra Pali, Shri Mateen ’ Siddiqui, Shri Manish Sharma and Shri Rakesh Anthony, Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State / respondents. Advocates for the respective petitioners. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Delivered on ...I§.+‘(‘iay of March, 2010) l. The aforementioned 18 writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, thus, all the petitions are being considered and ./ decided together. 2. The challenge in these petitions is to the interpretation of clause No. 4 and 5 of the advertisement dated 13.08.2008 pursuant to which, the petitioners alongwith others made applications for selection in the Patawari Selection Examination 2008, conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Vyapami \ 3. The brief indisputable facts, as projected by the petitioners are \\\\ that the petitioners appeared in the written examination 2 ; successfully. Thereafter, they v‘vere called for counseling for selection to admit to the Patwari Training Institutes for one year training. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were in possession of one year computer diploma certificate from the institutes recognized by the Government/Semi Government or the Union of India. The petitioners were denied admission to the training institute on the ground that the diploma certificate possessed by the petitioners were not from the recognized institutes in accordance with clause 4 and 5 of the advertisement dated 13.08.2008. The Patwari Selection Examination 2008 was conducted by the Vyapam wherein the contents of the advertisement was one and the same issued in different districts separately. The date of the advertisement in case of Raigarh and Raipur was 13.08.2008, in case of Kawardha, Dhamtari and Durg, it was 12.08.2008, in case of Rajnandgaon, 20.08.2008 and in case of Bilaspur, the date of advertisement was 27.08.2008. Smt. Renu Kochar, Shri Jitendra Pali, Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Shri Manish Sharma and Shri Rakesh Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that the petitioners have obtained one. year computer application qualification (diploma) from the institutes which were/are duly‘ recognized by the Directorate of Employment and Training, Government of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the rejection of Vtheir candidature on the ground that the petitioners were not in i possession of necessary computer application qualification (diploma) is erroneous and the same deserves to be quashed. Thus, these petitions. \ \\\ 3 Shri Y.S.Thakur, learned Deputy Advgcate General appearing for the State, opposing the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners; would submit that the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management issued a circular dated' 21.7.2008 (AnneXure R/2 to W.P.(S) No 4555/2009) wherein the instructlons were 1ssued for quahiication and appomtment of the Patwarls Clause 6 of the Circular prov1des that a candidate were requ1red to obtain computer application diploma certificate from the institute recognized by the Government/Semi Government or the Government of India or the State Government It was further made clear that 1n case of appomtment 1n the scheduled areas of the State the candidates selected for tralnmg were required to obtain computer apphcation qualification (diploma) 'within a period of one year. The petitioners have obtained computer application qualification (diploma) from non~recognized institutes. Recognition by the Directorate of Employment and training or by any other department cannot be construed as proper recognition as the Institutes have to be recognized by the Government bodies. The Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Raipur has issued notification dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/8 to W.P.(S) No. 4555/2b09) in regard to recognition to various institutions for issuing computer certificates/diploma \ \ 1n computer education for the purpose of appointment in Govt @ \ @ 4 , services on the post of Assistant Grade—III and Steno Typist. The Revenue Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur by notification dated lst August, 2007 (Annexure R/4 to W.P.(S) Nor 4555/2009), has prescribed the qualification in Land Records Manual as, at least Higher Secondaxy Examination (10+2) passed, which is recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh and one year’s computer application qualification (diploma) from the institution which is recognized by the governmental or semi— governmental or Union of India or State Government, as essential qualification. Having heard and considered rival contentions of 'the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that clause 4 and 5 of the advertisement provides that a candidate should have one year computer application qualification (diploma). Clause (A) of the advertisement dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/ 1 to W.P.(S) No. 3684/2009) prescribes for qualification. Sub clause 4 and 5 reads as under: “(4) 53W“ W. W Wm vim, W a 31W W, w 1—25/2004/m~3, W 16 11% 2007 am G111 Wan #WWWm mzomaiagnnmi’rua aWWnW/Ws‘mawwam wwnmmmnwmfmma WW(WMW. Wdawnmdmwwaumawn W/ae‘mawwmmawmwn mmmnrwaq‘aiaiwme‘twamm (m)mmsr%artfsim ” The circular dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/2 to W.P.(S) No. 4438/2009) ‘provides for recognition of the institutes for \ appointment in the government service viz. (i). Computer x \ \\ \ \ \ ‘ a?» 5 ; Science/Information Techn010§/Diploma in Modern Offlce Management certificate provided by the recognized Board of Technical Education/ State Technical University. (ii). Certificate of Computer Science/Information Technology/PG. Diploma in Computer application, graduate or post graduate degree issued by statutorily established recognized University/Deemed University/Open University, (iii). Diploma certificate issued by DOEACC Society, New Delhi and (iv). One year certificate in Computer Operator 8n Program Assistant Trade, issued by recognized I.T.I. 10. In addition, the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department oft Revenue and Disaster Management, Raipur, regulating the service conditions of the Patwaris, by circular dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure R/2 to W.P.(S) No. 4555/2009) provides for the same qualification as published in the advertisement. Clause 6 of the said circular reads as under: “6. Wanmmswaa‘mumwww awmmnmmwnmamm W(W)WW.IW$WM$W mawmnwndmma Wma‘a‘mdelmimmmmm I” The same is in cons/onance with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement or in the rules as amended by memo dated 16.5.2007 and 01.08.2007. 11. The petitioners have acquired diploma certificates from various institutes claiming to be recognized by the Government viz. I.C.E. Computer Education, All India Society For Electronics And Computer Technolog, Nicetec Society For Electronics And Computer Technology, National Council For Multipurpose Education and information Technology (NAG—MIT), Computer \ \ \ \ \ 6 Based Society for Education, Rungta College of Science 85 Technology, Computer Engineering College, Lakhotia Computer Centre, National Institute of Computer Technology Education College (NIC—TEC). 12. AISECT claims to be under core support from Department of Science & Technolog, Government of India. NiceTec Society for Electronics 85 Computer Technolog ‘is' recognized by the Directorate of Employment and Training, Government of Chhattisgarh ahd by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Madhya Pradesh. NAC-MIT, Lakhotia Computer Centre, and Computer Based Society for Education, do not appear to be recognized by any government body as no document in support has been produced. ICE Computer Education seems to be approved by Director of Employment, Chhattisgarh; NIC—TEC seems to be affiliated to National Institute of Computer Technology 8a Education Society. Rungta College of Science 85 Technology, appears to be affiliated to Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. Computer Engineering College does not show any recognition from any of the above stated bodies, asr prescribed in circular dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/2 to W.P.(S) No. 4438/2909) . 13. The petitioner No. l, in W.P,(S) No. 4123/2009, has acquired computer qualification (diploma) in computer from Computer Based Society For Education and also has the degree in Master of Computer Management from Rungta College of Education. Rungta College of Education is admittedly affiliated to the Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, but the qualification required for Patwari training is one year computer application qualification (diploma) which the has acquired from the institute which does \ \ l 7 , not appear to be affiliated or recognized as required under circular dated 7th June, 2007. 14. The petitioners have not produced any document in support of their contentions that the institutes, Wherefrom they have obtained the computer application qualification (diploma) are recognized by the proper bodies as stated hereinabove in the preceding para 9. 15. There seems to be some discrepancies in clause 4 and 5 of the advertisement issued in different district. But in all the’ advertisements, there is reference of the memo dated 16.052007 and amended memo dated 01.08.2007. The notification dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure P/2 to W.P.(S) No.3684/2009) provides for amendment whereby and whereunder Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Records Manual provides for ‘minimum qualification- of higher secondary (10+2) recognized by Government of Chhattisgarh. Amendment in Rule 3(4) provides for computer qualification (diploma) recognized by Government/ Semi Government or Government of India or the State Government, within a period of one year for the selected r candidates for Patwari Training in the non‘scheduled areas. Subsequently, by memo dated 01.08.2007 (Annexure P/3 to W.P.(S) No. 3684/2009) the word “non-scheduled” area was substituted by “scheduled” area and accordingly the‘ word “fl?” was deleted from Rule 3(4) of the Land Records Manual. Thus, the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was passed on the basis of the above stated amendments in the rules which prescribes essential qualification. If there is some discrepancy in advertisement published in some of the districts, (viz. in case of \\ \Raigarh District, in clause 4, where it is mentioned “4. mm; \ \ £45 8 WWW w HéH$ni£am¥Ha1ém(Wm) W W 3W ETIH.” appears to be a typographical mistake. 16. Some of the petitioners stated thabthe institutes where from they have obtained one year computer application qualification (diploma) has affiliation to the University. There is a difference between ‘affiliation’ and ‘recognition" ‘Afflliation’ is only for the students for examination and ‘recognition’ is a continuation that an act done by the other authority was authorized. 17. The Supreme Court in The Principal and others v. The Presiding Officer and Othersl, observed as under : purpose of preparing and presenting the “6. . . .’aff11iation’ and ‘recognition’. Whereas ‘affiliation’, it may be noted, is meant to prepare and present the students for public examination, ‘recognition’, of a private school is for other purposes mentiOned in the Act and it is only when the School is recognized by the ‘appropriate authority’ that it becomes amenable to other provisions of the Act. Again the fact that the school was in existence at the commencement of the Act cannot confer on it the status of a recognized school and make it subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. To clothe it with that status, it is essential that it should have been a ‘recongised private school’ as contemplated by the Act. Nothing has, hov'vever, been' brought to our notice to show that, it was an ‘existing school’ as defined in S. 2 (j) of the Act. In view of all this, we have no hesitation in holding that the School was not a ‘recognised private school’ on the relevant date and was, therefore, not amenable to the provisions of the Act.” a 18. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the petitioners have not obtained the essential qualification i.e. computer application (diploma) from the institutes Which are i \\\ \AIR l 1978 sc 344 \ \ 9 recognized either by the Government of India or the State Government, the recognition taken by the aforestated institutes from other departments cannot be held as recognition as the recognition must be as per the circular dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/2 to W.P.(S) No. 4438/2oo9y 19. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the State Government for not sending, the petitioners for admission to Patwari training institute, is just and proper. There is no perversity, irregularity or illegality. Government/ Semi Government/ ’ 20. Resultantly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. 21. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- " Satish K.Agnih0tl‘i Judge Thakur/ Gowri/ Amit @