SIN6Lt6ENCrt/^ "] d^^^ero IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.S No...... :^.2.B.5.. ...^009 PETITIONERS: 1. (\^m k^ ^ ^2. ^. ,,-^y ^'''.^''' ••'''' ^y,..--" <^y ^ Deepak Singh Thakur, S/o Shri Devendra Singh Thakur, aged about 25 years, R/o Naya Para Ward, Bajrang Chowk, Dhamtari, District: Dhamtari (C.G.) Prashant Sharma, S/o Shri Narayan Sharma, aged about 29 years, R/o Gram/ Post- Karhi, Tehsil- Mungeli, District: Bilaspur RESPONDENTS: VERSUS ,1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Departanent of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G.) "2. Director Directorate, Employment and Training, Chhattisgarh (Raipur) 3. Collector (Land Revenue Branch) District Dhamtari (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:- ^ A^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION IS} No. 4555 of 2009 PETITIONER : Santosh Kumar Vishvakarma VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh 8& another. ALONGWITH W.P.(S) No. 3882, 3883, 3884, 3885, 3898, 3999, 4123, 4199, 4482, 4483,4484,4485,4486,4489, 4865, 3684 and 4438 of 2009 ^t^ Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on /^,.ciay of March, 2010. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fSl No. 4555 of 2009 PETITIONER Santosh Kumar Vishvakarma VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh 8& another. ALONG WITH W.P.(S) No. 3882, 3883, 3884, 3885, 3898, 3999, 4123, 4199, 4482, 4483,4484,4485,4486,4489, 4865, 3684 and 4438 of 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Afitnihotri. J. Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, Shri Jitendra Pali, Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Shri Manish Sharma and Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocates for the respective petitioners. S'hri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. JUDGMENT fis ORDER (Delivered on ...f^. day of March, 2010) The aforementioned 18 writ petitions involve common question of facts and law, thus, all the petitions are being considered and decided together. The challenge in these petitions is to the interpretation of clause No. 4 and 5 ofthe advertisement dated 13.08.2008 pursuant to which, the petitioners alongwith others made applications for selection in the Patawari Selection Examination 2008, conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as <the Vyapam^ The brief indisputable facts, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners appeared in the written examination successfully. Thereafter, they were called for counseling for selection to admit to the Patwari Training Institutes for one year training. According to the petitioners, the petitioners were in possession of one year computer diploma certificate from the institutes recognized by the Government/Semi Government or the Union of India. The petitioners were denied admission to the training institute on the ground that the diploma certificate possessed by the petitioners were not from the recognized institutes in accordance with clause 4 and 5 ofthe advertisement dated 13.08.2008. The Patwari Selection Examination 2008 was conducted by the Vyapam wherein the contents of the advertisement was one and the same issued in different districts separately. The date of the advertisement in case of Raigarh and Raipur was 13.08.2008, in case of Kawardha, Dhamtari and Durg, it was 12.08.2008, in case of Rajnandgaon, 20.08.2008 and in case of Bilaspur, the date of advertisement was 27.08.2008. Smt. Renu Kochar, Shri Jitendra Pali, Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Shri Manish Sharma and Shri Rakesh Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that the petitioners have obtained one year computer application qualification (diploma) from the institutes which were/are duly recognized by the Directorate of Employment and Training, Government of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the rejection of their candidature on the ground that the petitioners were not in possession of necessary computer application qualification (diploma) is erroneous and the same deserves to be quashed. Thus, these petitions. 6. Shri Y.S.Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, opposing the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, would submit that the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management issued a circular dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure R/2 to W.P.(S) No. 4555/2009) wherein the instructions were issued for qualificadon and appointment of the Patwaris. Clause 6 of the circular provides that a candidate were required to obtain computer application diploma certificate from the institute recognized by the Government/Semi Government or the Government of India or the State Government . It was further made clear that in case of appointment in the scheduled areas of the State, the candidates selected for training were required to obtain computer application qualification (diploma) within a period of one year. The petitioners have obtained computer application qualification (diploma) from non-recognized institutes. Recognition by the Directorate of Employmenf and training or by any other department cannot be construed as proper recognition as the insfitutes have to be recognized by the Directorate of Technical Education of the State Government. It is not the case of any of the petitioners that any institution in dispute is recognized by proper department of the Central Government or the State Government or any other semi Government bodies. 7. The Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Raipur has issued notification dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/3 toW.P.(S) No. 4555/2009) in regard to recognition to various institutions for issuing computer certificates/diploma in computer education for the purpose of appointment in Govt. ^' services on the post of Assistant Grade-III and Steno Typist. The Revenue Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur by notification dated 1st August, 2007 (Annexure R/4 to W.P.(S) No. 4555/2009), has prescribed the qualification in Land Records Manual as, at least Higher Secondary Examination (10+2) passed, which is recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh and one year's computer application qualification (diploma) from the institution which is recognized by the governmental or semi- governmental or Union of India or State Government, as essential qualification. 8. Having heard and considered rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that clause 4 and 5 of the advertisement provides that a candidate should have one year computer application qualification (diploma). Clause (A) ofthe advertisement dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 3684/2009) prescribes for qualification. Sub clause 4 and 5 reads as under: "(4) y^ft'H^I<i ^TRFT, ^{vRS[ t^qPT 4dldA|, "'n^f ^ 3rf^Tq^T'TT ^TTT^ W 1-25/2004/^im-3, f^ft^ 16 ^ 2007 ^KT vfNt srf^T^T-TT ^' w?rH^r sil^Tq^-n f^rfcp 01 SPT'RT 2007 ^ ST^^TR ^rem^ TCT ^ f^P? ^^ft<{c|I^Y ^t ^11^4?l^/3rl^^ll^4?l^l si^n 'TRcr <ersTT ^T^T ^TRT-T ^ ^ll^dl TTP^T ^R^TT ^ 1i?^ <ri: ^T ct)W^d^ s;l<?n<^^ivi ^T^TTT (f^iNr) 3T^rar4 ~gtjn . (5) ^Twzr ^ af^'qpict ^ar ^ ^reqNt ^r^ tpr ^zrfSRr <d"ftc;cii^Y ^t ^ii'H^-y/a.i^^ii'Hcbl^ STS^T ITR^T >H^»T? HSTT '^sq ^RW? ^ ^n^rar HTT<T ^air ^ T?^ ^ ^ afcT? ^pw^ ^i<>ft<^^i^ si^mr (f^Ld1*1l) TTT[<T ^RT a.rf^Rpf ^hTT. " 9. The circular dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/2 to W.P.(S) No. 4438/2009) provides for recognition of the institutes for appointment in the government service viz. (i). Computer /)^; Science/Information Technology/Diploma in Modern Office Management certificate provided by the recognized Board of Technical Education/State Technical University. (ii). Certificate of Computer Science/Information Technology/P.G. Diploma in Computer application, graduate or post graduate degree issued by statutorily established recognized University/Deemed University/Open Universily, (iii). Diploma certificate issued by DOEACC Society, New Delhi and (iv). One year certificate in Computer Operator 85 Program Assistant Trade, issued by recognized I.TJ. 10. In addition, the Government of Chhattisgarh, Departnient of Revenue and Disaster Management, Raipur, regulating the service conditions of the Patwaris, by circular dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure R/2 to W.P.(S) No. 4555/2009) provides for the same qualification as published in the advertisement. Clause 6 of the said circular reads as under: (( 6. ^44l<ic||^T Wt ^11^4^1^ si^n sf^^nw^f ^rr 'qT^r ^^<M^ arsraT ^iuq ^Rq»R ^ TRT^.EraT VT^( wcan ^ ^TO^ ^kft^^i'i 3i^[T (F^Ld1*ii) srf^raTzf aNr i ^T^ c^ 3i^rci^ ^ ^ TR^Nt ^T^TSTUT t^ ^^Pld vi44l<c||^T ^7t ^f5 ^psf ^ 3T?^? <t?^^c^ ^i<?Tt<^^i'i ST^TT (P^i<'i1*ii) 1Eip<r c^pr aTf^crpf ^MT i" The same is in consonance with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement or in the rules as amended by memo dated 16.5.2007 and 01.08.2007. 11. The petitioners have acquired diploma certificates from various institutes claim.mg to be recognized by the Government viz. I.C.E. Computer Education, All India Society For Electronics And Computer Technology, Nicetec Society For Electronics And Computer Technology, National Council For Multipurpose Education and Information Technology (NAC-MIT), Computer Based Society for Education, Rungta College of Science 85 Technology, Computer Engineering College, Lakhotia Computer Centre, National Institute of Computer Technology Education College (NIC-TEC). 12. AISECT claims to be under core support from Department of Science & Technology, Government of India. NiceTec Society for Electronics & Computer Technology is recognized by the Directorate of Employment and Training, Government of Chhattisgarh ahd by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Madhya Pradesh. NAC-MIT, Lakhotia Computer Centre, and Computer Based Society for Education, do not appear to be recognized by any government body as no document in support has been produced. ICE Computer Education seems to be approved by Director of Employment, Chhattisgarh. NIC-TEC seems to be affiliated to National Institute of Computer Technology 85 Education Society. Rungta College of Science & Technology, appears to be affiliated to Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. Computer Engineering College does not show any recognition from any of the above stated bodies, as prescribed in circular dated 7th June, 2007 (Annexure R/2 to W.P.(S) No. 4438/2009) . 13. The petitioner No. 1, in W.P.(S) No. 4123/2009, has acquired computer qualification (diploma) in computer from Computer Based Society For Education and also has the degree in Master of Computer Management from Rungta College of Education. Rungta College of Education is admittedly affiliated to the Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, but the qualification required for Patwari training is one year computer application qualification (diploma) which the has acquired from the institute which does not appear to be affiliated or recognized as required under circular dated 7th June, 2007. 14. The petitioners have not produced any document in support of their contentions that the institutes, wherefrom they have obtained the computer application qualification (diploma) are recognized by the proper bodies as stated hereinabove in the preceding para 9. 15. There seems to be some discrepancies in clause 4 and 5 of the advertisement issued in different district. But in all the advertisements, there is reference of the memo dated 16.05.2007 and amended memo dated 01.08.2007. The notification dated 16.05.2007 (Annexure P/2 to W.P.(S) No.3684/2009) provides for amendment whereby and whereunder Rule 3(1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Records Manual provides for minimum qualification of higher secondaiy (10+2) recognized by Government of Chhattisgarh. Amendment in Rule 3(4) provides for computer qualification (diploma) recognized by Government/ Semi Government or Government of India or the State Government, within a period of one year for the selected candidates for Patwari Training in the non-scheduled areas. Subsequently, by memo dated 01.08.2007 (Annexure P/3 to W.P.(S) No. 3684/2009) the word "non-scheduled" area was substituted by "scheduled" area and accordingly the word u^) was deleted from Rule 3(4) of the Land Records Manual. Thus, the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was passed on the basis of the above stated amendments in the rules which prescribes essential qualification. If there is some discrepancy in advertisement published in some of the districts, {viz. in case of Raigarh District, in clause 4, where it is mentioned ('4. y^^^lri 8 ?TRFT '^T^jT^T f^TpT...--....^^ ^f ^T ^^C^ y:cft^?r-T 3T^T (f^eT^TT) inra ^^-11 3iPicii4 ?hTT/? appears to be a typographical mistake. w- 16. Some of the petitioners stated that.the institutes where from they have obtained one year computer application qualification (diploma) has affiliation to the University. There is a difference between <affiliation? and <recognition?. <Affiliation? is only for the purpose of preparing and presenting the students for « examination and <recognition? is a confirmation that an act done by the other authority was authorized. 17. The Supreme Court in The Principal and others v. The Presiding Officer and Others1, observed as under : U6.... 'affiliation? and <recognition\ Whereas <affiliation?, it may be noted, is meant to prepare and present the students for public examination, (recognition?, of a private school is for other purposes mentioned in the Act and it is only when the School is recognized by the (appropriate authority' that it becomes amenable to other provisions of the Act. Again the fact that the school was in existence at the commencement of the Act cannot confer on it the status of a recognized school and make it subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. To clothe it with that status, it is essential that it should have been a 'recongised private school' as contemplated by the Act. Nothing has, however, been brought to our notice to show that it was an 'existing school'as defined in S. 2 (j) of the Act. In view of all this, we have no hesitation in holding that the School was not a ^recognised private school' on the relevant date and was, therefore, not amenable to the provisions of the Act." 18. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the petitioners have not obtained the essential qualification i.e. computer application (diploma) from the institutes which are .^^ AIR 1978 Sc 344 19. 20. 21. Thakur/ Gowri/ Amit recognized either by the Government/Semi Government/ Government of India or the State Government, the recognition taken by the aforestated 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 to W.P.(S) No. 4438/2009). Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the State Government for not sending, the petitioners for admission to Patwari training institute, is just and proper. There is no perversity, irregularity or illegality. Resultantly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge