Amended copy of the petition. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rC.G.) Petitioner:- W.P.(S) No 5965./2009. Balram Prasad S/o Late .4. Ramesh Lal aged about 25 years R/o Villiage Bansurkuli Tahsil Bilaigarh District Raipur (C.G.) . VERSUS Respondents :- L 1. State ofchhattisgarh, Through its Chief Secretrary ^department of Samanya Prashashan Vibhag, D.K.S.Bhavan Mantralya Raipur (C.G.). 2. Collector Bilapur (C.G.). 3. Chhattisgarh Vyavsaik, Parikha Mandal, Through its Controller , C/168, Tagor - Nagar Raipur (C.G.) . 4.National Council for Multipurpose Education and InformationTechnology (NAC- MIT), Through its competent Co-ordinator ,Co-ordination Office Raipur, at 12,Iind Flour Durga College Complex Moudhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT AVRITS , /AND/OR/ OTHER APPROPRIATE , DIRECTION/ DIRECTIONS ,AND/OR, OTHER APPRQPRIATE ORDER/ORDERS. ,\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 5962 of2009 PETJTLONER Pankaj Kumbhaj. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS : WRIT PETITION fS) No. 5965 of2009 PETTTIONER RESPONDENTS Balram Prasad. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1&2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 06th day ofApril, 2011) The facts and issue involved in the above two writ petitions are identical, thus, they are being disposed ofby this common order. By these petitions^ the respective petitioners seek cancellation of the selection list of the Trainee Patwari for the year 2008-09 in respect of the Other Backward Class category, and to direct the respondents to issue a revised list by adding the name of the petitioners for the said post and further, to direct the respondent authorities to issuejoining letters. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners appeared in the written examination conducted by the respondent-Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, and they were successful in the said examination. Thereafter, the petitioners were called for counselling but they were not allowed to participate in the counselling on the ground that their certificate of computer v^ .-"^.•:'?rw^^.. i 'vsa% j \:^/ .5S£5< 6. ^ ^ diploma was not issued by any institution recognized by the Central/State University or any body recognized by the Central or State Govemment. In fact, the computer diploma certificate was issued by the institution which is duly recognized by the Autonomous Council (Svayatta Parishad) established by the Govemment of India, New Delhi. Thus, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the candidature of the petitioners and their names ought to have been included in the select list. On the other hand, Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that since the petitioners were successful in the written examination and thereafiter, they were called for counselling, that does not confer any right on the petitioners for selection as it was a mandatory condition that the qualification of computer diploma must be from the institutes recognized by the Govemment/Semi Govemment or Union of India, which is not the case ofthe petitioners as provided in clause (4) of the advertisement dated 13.05.2008 [Annexure P/5 to W.P.(S) No. 5962/2009]. Thus, their candidature was rightly rejected. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The issue involved in this petition came up for hearing before this Court in Santosh Kumar Vishvakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh1 and other connected matters and Holiak Prasad Kaiwartya v, State of Chhattisgarh & Others2, wherein this ' W.P.(S) No. 4555 of2009, decided on 15.03.2010 2 W.P.(S) No. 4545 of2009, decided on 04.05.2010 ...-^^ X... •c^ "%. 'H ^ Court has dealt in detail. In the said case, the term 'affiliation' and 'recognition9 has also been considered and decided, wherein, this Court, relying on a decision of Supreme Court in The Principal & Others v. The Presiding Officer and Others , observed that there is a difference between 'affiliation' and 'recognition9. 'Affiliation' is only for the purpose ofpreparing and presenting the students for examination and 'recognition' is a confirmation that an act done by the other authority was authorized. 7. On pemsal ofthe computer diploma certificate, it is nowhere found that the institute was recognized by the State Govemment, Semi Govemment or the Govemment oflndia. The petitioners have also not produced any document in support of their contention to establish the fact that the institute was duly recognized by the competent govemment. The petitioners have failed to establish that the essential qualification i.e. computer application (diploma) certificate was obtained from the institute, which is recognized by the State Govemment/Semi Government/ Govemment of India. The recognition of aforesaid institute from other departments cannot be held as recognition, as the recognition must be as per the circular dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/l to W.P.(S) No. 4545/2009). 8. In view ofthe above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 9. There shall be no order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3AIR1987SC344