HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLESHRIR.N.^CHANDRAKAR.JJ Appellant (Petitioner WP) in Respondents (Respondents inWP) Versus 1. 2. 3. WritADpeal No. 158 of 2010 Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Shrivastava, R/o Gudhiyari Pahari Chowk, Krishna Nagar, Near MainGate, Raipur(CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Throngh Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector, Durg (Chhattisgarh) Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, Through Chief Executive Officer, District Durg (CG) Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. Advocate General for the State. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORALJUDGMENT , (27th January, 2011) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J Thiswrit appeal is directed againstthe order dated 30th March, 2010 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Single Judge in WP(s) No.5568/2008 whereby the petitioner's writ petition against the order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Collector, Durg, canceling his appointment on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-111, hasbeen dismissed. 02. The appellant was appointed as Shikshakarmi Grade-111 on 20.7.2007 for a probation period of three years by Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh. He was served with ashow cause notice dated 16.2.2008 and asked to explaio. the allegatiQn of submitting fake documents. He denied the allegation ahd elaimed that the alleged documents are not fake, and the same are genuine and bonafide documents. The District Education Officer (DEO) came tp the conclusion that there is no mention of experience certificate in the records and assuch, the experiencecertificate wasa fake document. The matter y was referred to the Collector. The Collector, after considering all the aspects of the matter, vide his order dated 25.8.2008 concluded that the experience certificate issued in favourof the petitioner was a bonafide and genuine documentas the Block Education Officer as certified about the experience of teaching of the petitioner. However, his appointment was cancelled on the groynd thaf he does not have minimum eightmonths' teachiog experience. 03. The writ petition against the above order has been again dismissed by the impugned order with anobservation that "However, it ismade clearthatif any candidate is appointed without fulfilling the requisite qualifications, his case may be considered, decided after passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law." 1 04. Shri Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was awarded 5 marks on the basis of experience certificate. Even if this bonusmarks are deducted, the appellant would have been selected as Shikshakarmi Grade-111, and several others are still working as Shikshakarmis, who have secured lesser marks than the appellant. The appellant's appointment could not have been cancelled onlyon the ground that he has beenawarded 5 marks for teaching experience for a period of five months as it was none of the faults on the part of the appellant in awarding marks. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh in compliance of the Court's order dated 14.6.2010, it was argued that if 5 marks awarded to the appellant towards teaching experience are deducted, in that case.he would have secured 54.49%, whereas in the merit list, the other candidates, namely Ramniwas Singh Rajput and Bhuvneshwar Prasad Shukla, who secured 54.34% and 54.21% respectively, and placed at S].No.172 and 181, have been appointed underthe "Unreserved Category". ^ vf ''"•t:s-^.. ! '^^h. [!r,,:-"'l-a ^ :;;a:.S&S.> 1 I 'VwiSsif^ j, i "i r 05. Ontheother hand, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and ShriAkhileshKumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.S-Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh, would argue that the appellant's appointment has been cancelled as the same was procured on the basis of certificate of five months' teaching experience.which was never issuedfrom the office of DEO, asthe minimum teaching experience of eight months was necessary forawarding 5 bonus marks. Methods of selections and recruitment are provided under Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shikshakarmis (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1997 (in short "the Rules, 1997"). Sub-rule (9) of Rule 5 provides that 70% marks of the total marks obtained bythe candidate in the qualifying examination specified in Schedule-11; maximum 12 marks for teaching experience; 2.5 mark^ for certificate of Scout and Guide/NCC; and 4.5 marks for sports, are to be awarded by the Evaluation Committee afterscrutiny ofthe applications ofthe candidates. Since the appellant did not have the requisite teaehing experience, no marks could be awarded to him for the same and he was not eligible for recruitment on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-111. 06. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 07. The conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment and promotion on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-1, 11& III, areprovided in Schedule-11 madg under Rule 2(c) and Rule 5 ofthe Rules.1997. The eligibility criteria for recruitment on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-111 have been prescribed as Higher Secondary Certificate Examination. There are no other eligibility criteria, such as teaching experience, prescribed underthe Rules, 1997. In viewof the admitted premises that even if 5 marks awarded to the appellant towards teaching experience are deducted, he obtained more marks than two other carididates of General Category, who have been selected and whbsenames appear at SI.No.172 and 181 in the select list, we /v^^ \ 1 ;€'riSii^'j ^. '%»J'/ ""^sy are of the opinion that the appellant's appointment could not be cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 25.8.2008 on the groundthat he did not have the minimum eight months' teaching experience. 08. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that the leaned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order. 09. Consequently, we allow this writ appeal, set aside the order dated 25.8.2008 (Annexure P/1) of the Collector, Durg and the impugned order dated 30 March, 2010 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Single Judg?. We direct the respondents to re-consider the case of appointment of the appellant, after deciding his position in the merit list of the selected candidates, after deducting 5 bonus marks erroneously awarded to him towards teaching experience. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar ^Judge Uiai