‘uivkilcm aK Egm?m§ f BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritAppeal no, 33% /2011 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 211! OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IA'I'I‘ISGARH APPEAL TO {DIVISION BENCH ACT 2006 R/W RUL gem) OF 1H1: HIGH COURT RULE 1&8 7 y >} / «,‘q‘ @ APPELLANT/PETITIONER ’- / Lalit Jangde, S/o Ramayan Lal Jangde aged about 26 years, R/o ¥ Pumi Basti, Adile chouk, Korba ”HM! (C-G) wetK v “ m Versus w’ RESPONDANT - / High Court ofChhattis‘garh through Registrar General ofHigh Court, At Bodri, Bilaspur (C.G) 15W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Present: Appellant in person. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the respondent. Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh H_igh Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Delivered on 18th August, 2011) Per Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.: The instant appeal has been preferred by petitioner Lalit Jangde against order dated 24-6-2011 (Annexure A-1) passed by Iearned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S.) No.3084/2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed. we“ 2. The appellant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, moved the ' writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking reliefs that his candidature be declared eligible and the application form filled up by him be declared as proper without any defect and the same may be considered as valid and allow him to appear in the examination of Civil Judge (Entry Level) 2011 to be conducted on t _\V\\ ’ 26-6-201 1 . \ D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri and Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Writ Appeal No.339 of 2011 Appellant Lalit Jangde versus Respondent High Court of Chhattisgarh / /;7 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that an advertisement i (Annexure P-1 in the writ petition) was issued by the respondent on 7—3-2011 inviting applications from intending candidates for appearing in the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Preliminary Examination, 201 1. The said advertisement was for 29 posts, out of which, 4 were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and 5 were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The appellant submitted his application along with fee of Rs.300l— by way of a challan, as, he, being a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, was entitled to fee concession. Admittedly, the appellant did not annex his caste certificate along with the application and this A; was the reason for rejection of his application. 4. The appellant, appearing in person, argued that on a plain reading of clause 19 of the advertisement, it would appear that the certificates are required to be attached with the application form for the main examination and there was no requirement of submitting the caste certificate or any other certificate while submitting application for preliminary examination for claiming relaxation in fee. 5. The appellant would further submit that the instructions for the candidates published along with the advertisement uses the word ‘and’ in between the words ‘age’ and ‘fees’, therefore, the said instructions would be applicable to a candidate belonging to reserved category, who is seeking relaxation in age as well as in \ fees and the said instructions are not applicable in the present case. (70Q 3 6. The appellant has further submitted that there is violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 16 of the Constitution of India‘ 7. _ On the other hand, Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the entire advertisement including the main advertisement as well as instructions for the candidates are to be read and understood as a whole in its entirety and the same should not be read in isolation so as to attach different meaning at different stages and for different aspects. He would submit'that if the instructions for the candidates are read and understood in the manner in which the appellant is canvassing, the same would result in a anomalous situation, wherein no candidate would be required to submit any certificate of any nature even if he claims relaxation in fees or otherwise. He would further submit'that in appropriate cases, depending upon the object for which the advertisement has been issued the word ‘and’ is required to be read as ‘or’. He would then submit that the appellant’s application was not complete in all respects, therefore, rejection of the same is in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and no interference can be made. 8. We have heard the parties at length and perused record of the writ petition. 9. In Baddula Lakshmaiah and others vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and others, (1996) 3 SCC 52, the Hon’ble Supreme "\ Court has held thus: (X 4 “2. ....... Against the orders of the trial court, first appeai lay before the High Court, both on facts as well as law. It is the internal working of the High court which splits it into different ‘Benches’ and yet the court remains one. A Ietters patent appeai, as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normaliy an intra-court appeai whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeai against an order of a subordinate court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. So understood, the appellate power under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily u A understood .in procedural language. .. 10. ln Mani wlo Komalchand Jain vs. Sub-Divisional Forest Officer-cum—Authorised Officer, Mhow and another, 2000 (2) MPLJ 586, a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held thus: “5. ....... Letters Patent Appeal is‘normally an intra- court appeal whereunder Letters Patent Bench corrects its own orders in exercise of same jurisdiction as vested in Single Judge— It is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate court. In the matters of Ku. Varsha Shrivastava vs. State of M.P., L.P.A. 16/2000, (since reported in 2000 (1) MPLJ 615) Madhur Agrawal vs. State of M.P., L.P.A. 17/2000 and Saumi Chatterjee vs. State of M.P., L.P.A. 20/2000, the Division Bench of this court has also taken a view that the attitude of Division Bench while deciding the LPA has to be strict keeping in view the incoming flood of LPAs. The LPA is intra—court appeal. Therefore, the Division Bench should not be s f7qb scanning out the order passed by the Single Bench from all corners. If the order is good enough to deal with the averments made in the matter of Writ Petition and if it is sound on Iegai grounds, the Division Bench should be slow in disturbing it. lt is not to be dealt with as if it is firstappeal. 11. In B. Venkatamuni vs. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and others, (2006) 13 SCC 449, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “11. ln an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench undoubtedly may :be ‘ entitled to reappraise both questions of fact and law, but the following dicta of this Court in Umabai v. Nilkam‘h Dhondiba Chavan, (2005) 6 SCC 243, could not have been ignored by it, whereupon the learned counsel for the respondents relied: (SCC p. 261, para 52) “52. It may be. as has been held in Asha Devi v. Dukhi Sao, (1974) 2 SCC 492, that the power of the appellate court in intra—court appeal is not exactly the same as contained in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Pro‘é‘édure but it is also well known that entertainment of a letters patent appeal is discretionary and normally the Division Bench would not, unless there exist cogent reasons, differ from a finding of fact arrived at by the. learned Single Judge. Even as noticed hereinbefore, a court of first appeal which is the final court of appeal on fact may have to exercise some amount of restraint.” x 12. In clause 9 of the advertisement, the schedule of fees has \‘_ been provided. For candidates belonging to general category, fee of " / \ n‘\ 6 Rs.500/— has been prescribed, whereas for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Ciass, relaxed fee of Rs.300l— has been prescribed. 13. When the matter stood thus now the instructions to candidates are to be perused. Paragraph 7 of the instructions provides that ”For reiaxation in age & fees, caste certificate issued by competent authority must be attached”. This instruction, thus, cleariy provides that for seeking relaxation in either age and/or fee, production of caste certificate is sine quo non. 14. Admittedly, the appellant submitted his candidature as Scheduled Caste candidate, but he did not annex his caste certificate along with the application and this is the reason for rejection of his application. 15. The writ Court has pointed out in the impugned order tha it t has not considered and appreciated the instructions for the candidates particularly paragraph 7 thereof in isolation, but since the said paragraph has to be read along with various clauses of the advertisement and because the appellant is seeking relaxation in fees applicable to a reserved category candidate, the issue regarding grant-of relaxation or otherwise as a reserved category candidate cannot be decided by the Scrutiny Committee of the respondent unless a certificate is annexed along with the application / ,\ \ ‘ r J/ , \form. \ k0 16. From the above, it is clear that the writ Court has decided the issues raised by the appeiiant on merits and there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the finding arrived at by the writ Court. We do not find any good ground to entertain this writ appeal. 17. In view of the foregoing, the appeal deserves to be and is Gopal accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ’/a Sd/— SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI _ Sdl— sharma Judge Radhe shyam Judge