,T7W^.''% ^>" ^^' :0"L^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR \^ CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Writ Appeal No. 52 of 2007 Kumari Keshri Chouhan Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Hon?ble Shri Justice Raieev Gupta ^3 <rX^V^lL Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment : 2-'L/04/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge l=s S^^i •^-"'; -^. /','<r ^^ 'x ^^^ 1 -V:. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon^ble Shri Rajeev Guota, C.J. SB Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Writ Appeal No. 52 of 2007 \^ Appellant/ Petitioner Non- Applicants/ Respondents Kumari Keshri Chouhan, aged about 32 years, Daughter of Shri Shyam Sundar Chauhan, R/o Village Ranidih, Post Sariya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Water Resources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, (C.G.) The Engineer-in-Chief, Deptt. of Water Resources Sihawa Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G). The Chief Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Raipur (C.G.) (Writ Appeal under Section 2 Sub-SectioiLd) ofthe Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Benchl Act, 20061 Appearance: Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the appellant Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents. JUDGMENT (2^.04.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. yuo Writ Appeal No.52 of2007 ..^ (1) The appellant/petitioner no.45 has filed this appeal against the order dated 14th of December, 2006 passed in W.P.No.3672/2005 by the learned single Judge ofthis Court. (2) The facts briefly stated are as under: An advertisement was published on 08.6.2005 for filling-up the vacancies of Amins available as backlog. The petitioners were selected and a common order of appointment dated 30.6.2005 was issued in their favour. The above common appointment order dated 30.6.2005 was subsequenfly quashed by the State Government vide Order dated 23.7.2005 on the ground that their selection was not in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid action in the writ petition, which was filed for the following reliefs: "7. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT: In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners most humbly and respectfully pray following reliefs: (i) That the Hon?ble Court may kindly issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order of cancellation of appointment dated 23.07.2005 (Annexure P-4). (ii) That the HonT^le Court may kindly issue a writ of mandamus or directions to the respondents to allow/accept the joining of - \ the petitioners on the post of Amin. ^ /?-"\ v^\ ^,....- ^x. '•^--' WritADDealNo.52of2007 (iii) That any other relief which Hon?ble Court may deem fit may kindly be awarded. (iv) Cost of the petition and Advocate fee may kindly be allowed.?? (3) The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that after reading both the conditions of the qualification together, it is clear that the candidate should have possessed High School Examination Pass Certificate under the 10+2 and should have obtained Patwari's Training Certificate from the registered institute recognized by the State Government, whereas, the petitioners have obtained Patwari's Training Certificates from the registered institute but not recognized by the State Government. (4) Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that a perusal of the advertisement would show that the candidates who have passed Patwari's Training Examination from the registered institutes were also "ligible to fill up the form for the post of Amins. He would further submit that it is not required under the law that a candidate must have obtained Patwari's Training Certificate from an institute recognized by the Government. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the learned single Judge, Referring to Para 9 of the Additional response filed in the yi3 ^^..^-^ ^' < '^ ^ ! t.yi.-.. i '''^•''•'. '• '^:'^} i v. T^ /? ...^ \^z^ Writ Appeal No.52 of 2007 writ appeal, he argued that after cancellation of the select list, which was the subject matter of W.P.No.3672/2005, fresh advertisements were issued and as a result of fresh selection process, 16 candidates were found suitable who have already been selected by the respondents for the post of Amins. (6) We have heard the learned counsel for he parties at length and have also perused fche records of the writ appeal. (7) Admittedly, in the advertisement dated 08.06.2005, it was mentioned that a candidate who has passed High School Exaniination under the 10+2 system and has also passed Patwari9s Examination from an institute recognized by the Government can fill up the form, It was further mentioned that a candidate who has obtained Patwari Training and has passed Patwari's Examination from the registered institute may also apply for the said post. (8) The relevant Rule which is applicable in the present case is M.P (C.G) Irrigation Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1969. According to the provisions ofthe said Rule, following is the basic qualification fixed for appointment to the post of Amin. (1) "Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination or High School Examination under the 10+2 system from a recognized board. (2) Qualified in Patwari's training" a?t ^i ii \^ Writ Apneal No.52 of2007 (9) So far as the first qualification relating to Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination or High School Examination under the 10 + 2 system from a recognized Board is concerned, ;there is no dispute. The dispute is raised in relation to the second qualification which only says as "qualified in Patwari's Training??. If regarding second qualification i.e., Patwari's Training, it is held that it can be obtained from any institute though registered but not recognized by the State Government, it shall not be fulfilling the object of the rules, as in that case many candidates who may not be trained as per the norms of the Government may come for selection after obtaining certificates from the registered institutes which are not recognized by the Government. If the Government has fbced certain qualification for a post looking to the nature of work attributed to the said post, then the qualification must be from the institute recognized by the Government for the purpose. On one hand, it would be a measure to check up the hazard and on the other hand only suitable and qualified candidates would be available for selection. (10) Admittedly, the petitioners including the appellant had obtained Patwari's Training Certificates from a registered institute, but not recognized by the State Government. Therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly held that they were not qualified for appointment to the post of Amins as they were not having certificates from the institute recognized by the State Government. L,'' f •|)m<w" ^ v^ WritADDealNo.52of2007 (11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the view taken by the learned single Judge. The appeal has no merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismis^ed. (12) There shall be no orders as to costs. _ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge M M, Ra Iti -j.i