INjrHEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(CGJ W.P.S No... ...L/..5..?. .^... .../2009 PETITIONERS: ^ ^..w^y ^^5ft>" ^y^ ^'.^ ^ ^ 1. ' Chanchal Kumar, S/o Shri Budhram, aged about 23 years, R/o Village & Post Farsadeeh, TaIisU Bilaigarh district Raipur (CG) A^ ^ip^- 2- *Ait'r^ ^'' Anil Kumar Norge, S/o Shri Govind Ram, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Dhabadeeh Post Koshir Tahsil Pamgarh, district Janjgir Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: A- 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Departanent of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Du'ectorate, Employment and Training, Chhattisgarh (Raipur) 3. Collector (Land Revenue Branch) District Sarguja (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- N^^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONCS) No. 4550 of2009 PETITIONER : Chanchal Kumar & another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri. J. Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia^ Deputy Govemment Advocate and Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 09th day of April, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioners for selection in Patwari Training School. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/3), the petitioners applied for selection and appointment on the post ofPatwari. A written examination was conducted on 15.12.2008 by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board and the result was declared thereof. Thereafter, counselling was conducted-on 26.6.2009 but the petitioners9 candidature was denied on the ground that they were not in possession of one year computer application (diploma) certificate from a recognized institution. 3. Shri Pali further submits that the petitioners are in possession of computer diploma certificate from the institutions recognized by the Govemment of Chhattisgarh. Even if it is assumed that the petitioners do not have requisite qualification of computer application (diploma) certificate, even then the respondent authorities ought to have considered the candidature of the petitioners as in the advertisement itself, it was clearly provided that the Patwaris who are selected for appointment in the Scheduled Areas, they shall have a period of one year to acquire the said certificate. However, ignoring the same, the respondent authorities have denied the candidature of the petitioners. Further, the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Raipur, regulating the ser^ice conditions of the Patwaris, by circular dated 21.07.2008 provides for the same qualification as published in the advertisement. Clause 6 ofthe said circular reads as under: "^"ft^cii^Y ^t ^ii^ctn^i srsrar 3Tei:?TRra?^T ^T 'wrar ^i^4>i^ sr^rar ^j9 ^i^4»i^ ^ ^ti^idi ^T(<T ^T^TT ^ cfr^M^d^ ^Lofl<6^1-t ST^rf (fe^W) Srf^pf ^tiTTI ^T^ET ^ ^T^qJ^T ^ ^ Mdc||^ irf^TSTUT t^ ^I^Pld ^"ft^cll^Y ^t 1^? ^ ^ 3F^? cb44^e^ ^^^^l-l 3T^TT (fe^TTT) TrT^T ^RT 3rrf^RPf Shri Pali further submits that this Hon'ble Court has already dealt with the aforeasaid provisions in Santosh Kumar Vish^akarma v. State of Chhattisgarh & another1 and other connected matters. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the petitioners do not belong to Scheduled Areas, therefore they were required to possess one year computer diploma certificate from the recognized institutes, which in fact, the petitioners do not have. Their diploma certificates are not from any recognized institutes as required under circular dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/2). Thus, their candidature has rightly been rejected and they may not be entitled to the benefit ofclause (3T)(5) ofthe advertisement dated 13.08.2008. The issue with regard to the term 'affiliation9 and 'recognition' has also been considered and decided by this Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar Vish^akarma (supra), wherein this Court, relying on a decision • W.P.(S) No. 4555 of2009, decided on 15.03.2010 ^.^, ^fe^s '^, ^^^/ w^ 8. of Supreme Court in The Principal & Others v. the Presiding Officer and others2, observed that there is a difference befrween 'affiliation9 and 'recognition9. 'Affiliation' is only for the purpose of preparing and presenting the students for examination and 'recognition9 is a confirmation that an act done by the other authority was authorised. It appears that the petitioners haye not obtained the essential qualification i.e. computer application (diploma) certificate from the institutes which are recognized either by the Govemment/Semi Govemment/Govemment of India or the State Govemment, the recognition taken by the aforesaid 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). Further, on bare perusal of clause (Annexure P/3), clause 6 of the circular dated 21.07.2008 and Rule 3(4) of the Chhattisgarh Land Records Manual, which is clear and unambiguous, provides that the candidate selected for Patwari Training in the Scheduled Area would be required to obtain computer application (diploma) certificate within a period of one year. The criteria is that the candidate should be selected for training in the Scheduled Area and not that the candidate should be resident of the Scheduled Area. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioners are selected for Patwari Training in the Scheduled Area i.e. for District Surguja and they may acquire the requisite qualification of computer application (diploma) certificate within a period ofone year and their candidature cannot be rejected on this count that their AIR1978SC344 ^'^' ^, t^^!t:^ v y '^"'^ •K J -^^ kWNlN»- ^7) computer diploma certificate is not from any recognized institute. Thus, the contention ofrespondent-State is unsustainable. 9. In view ofthe above, the respondent authorities are directed to prepare a fresh merit list and consider the candidature of the petitioners for selection in Patwari Training School, subject to verification ofthe facts that the petitioners acquire all other requisite qualifications, except computer application (diploma) certificate from a recognized institute as provided under circular dated 7.6.2007 (Annexure R/2), in the light of order rendered by this Court in Santosh Kumar Vish^akarma (supra). 10. Resulfantly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Amit Judge h