ihéka 3encll E IN THE HIGH COURT OF‘CHHATI'ISGARH AT- BILASPUR (C.GQ WRIT PETITION N043447L2004 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC AND FOR‘ A”PROPRIATE ORDER/ORDERS DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS S © ,PETITIONER yRakesh Kumar J‘aiswal, aged about ‘42 years, son of Shri WX R.P. Jaiswal, occupation 7: “Q“ Deputy Commissioner, Nagar %. /O .....Yg‘w ?Q\w~"‘ “‘5‘“ W T Nigam, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), resident of — Revenue Colony, ‘ Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission through : Its Secretary, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of General Administration, f D.K.S..T Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) @ WW : ,§§§;é ,fQ'a W W WQ? a ' " 20G W —— 512005 Sm'r Hamidc Siddiq couns or The efi‘rioner. , ue, e f p Shri Prushan'f Mishm, Add al Advocu'l'e enera! fo fhz i ion G r Sfafe. Rejoinder has been fiied'on ehoif he peTiTioner. s The pieadings a compiefe, fherefore, if was decided '0 dispose of fhis ma‘Her finally u'l' Te admissinn sTa iTself. By Thi wriT peTiTion fiied under Article 22627 of he ConsTiTuTion of India The peTiTi r has quTioned The iegaiify proprieTy and correcTness of Th der daTed’ 7-12-2004 (Aexure- P/l) whreby The pe'h'Tioner iicq'iion for appearing in The inferview for- The posT o Dep Direci'nr has been rejecTed by respondem‘ No.1, Chhaf‘risgm‘h Pblic' service Commission on The ground haT Te peTiTioner does no possess The requisiTe experience as per The eligibiiiTy cr-iTeria. Brief facTs ieading To filing This wriT piTian are ThuT n requisiTion received rom T De TmenT of EducaTion respondenT No.1eherein vid Annexure-P/ in ed The appcaTions for iiig ip The acncies in The EducaTion D rTmenT To e posTs of DepuTy DirecTor (EducaTion), *D.I.E.T. ( isTr‘icT InsTiTuTe of EduoaTionol Training) Principe! and LecTurers (Educafion Coiiege Cadre). In response To The said adverTiseme’n The peTiTioner herein aiso senT an G1; pRJ—FS/3§0—~] 2/2000—50,000. MK WW W&%w¥wb®% b of T A re 1 h g s /2 T o e es , e r nn e ’s p f u u‘ T h ? f eT o u f he p r e Z v T li fin L vd e a Th WW,, WE ., WW applica‘fion for The pos+ of Depu'l'y Director. However, his applimfion was rejected vide communicafion Annexure-P/I sen? by respondem' No.1 PubHc Servica Commission on fha ground 'Hnm‘ The pefi'tioner‘ does no‘l' possess 1'he requisi're experience. The confroversy invoived in This muTfer‘ is The interpre'm'fion of the eiigibm'ry cré‘reria for appearing in The inferview for ’1-he posf of Depu‘ry DireC'ror'. English franslafio af The? reads fhus: ‘(i) for +he aos‘r of DepuTy Director The candi ‘a‘re mus? possess 2m class posT gradua‘l'ion decree of any recognized Universi‘i'y’ and in The experience ciuuse if has been mem‘ioned fhu'r (ii) fhe candida‘re mus-r have 10 - year's feaching experience of Higher Secondary Classes and minimum 3 years adminisfm‘iive experience. The case of The peTiTioner is TheT as far as firs? criTeria is iconcerned, ‘I'he peiifianer possess gfhe experience of feaching of i igher Secondary Classes and ceriificai'e +0 Thai effect is Annexure- /4 and The same has not been m de ground for rejecTion of The piica‘tion of The peTiTianer. Furthe case of The petitioner is that in ' The y&r 1996 he was seiec‘ted s Grade-II i.e. Chief Municipai fficer 5y The Public Service Commi sion and since March, 1996 he is orking on ThaT posT. Presently, he is working on the posT of Deputy -ommissioner, Nagar Nigam, Ra pur, Therefore, as per the i'1 i Gii DRJ—FS/SSO—12/2000—50,000. GWW mgggw‘gaNa, Wig: 2w ‘WW<W> mmm i mwafaam Wmxaimm ~0z.__ syemnm WW Em “t: J W W 20$ expemence. Whereas, reply of fhe resp ndem‘ No.1 is 'l'hq1' in order fa become eligible for The pos‘r of De u'ry Dirac-for- ‘rhe candida‘le mus* possess 3 year's of administrative e perience in the fieid of Educafion and nof in ofher departments, wh ch was fhe requiremen'r of th nofificu‘fian dufed 9-7-2003. posf of Depufy Director- (Educa'rion) is a posT of admini Tm'rive nm‘ur'e confrolling and ions a1 The Primary, High and Higher Secondary ievei, Theref re, any .oTher adminisTmTive experience cf any oTher deparTme T cannoT be considered To be an posT of Depu‘iy DirecTor £(Educofion) Accordingiy, a requi iTion Was sem' by The DepuTy DirecTor Pubiic InsTrucTions ChhaTTisgarh To The Public Service Commission requesTing The Public rvice Commission To recruiT The candidaTe for The posT of DepuTy Di ecTor (EducaTion) vide AnneXLire- R/i. WFurTher case of The respon enTs is ThaT even according To Scheduie 3 of The MP. Schol EducaTion GazeTTed Service RecruiTmenT and PromoTion Rules, 982 (hereinafTer referred To as ‘The Rules') minimum qualificaTion r The posT of DepuTy DirecTor (EducaTion) is PosT graduaTe degr (minimui’n Ilnd Division) ArTs, coordina‘ring various Teaching insT i adminisTraTive experience for Gil DRJ FS/3_50—12/2000 50,000. e e T ‘e E WWW W? a W? »%W Wgég m 200 .amw W (W) Wwm #4f W$3m wm €531'mm Commerce, Science or equivalen‘r ‘qmlificafion. 10 years experience adminisfmfion and feach‘ing a‘r fhe ~ligher Secondary School Ieve! of which a'r Izasf 3 years vmuS'r be on fh adminisfmfive side. I haVe heard learned counsel r fhe parfies. Learned counsel for The pe‘ri oner, while placing reliance on fhe judgmen'r of fhe Hon'ble Apex Co r1' in The ma‘H‘er of’3ibhuda'H'a Moham'y V. Union of India and o hers repor‘red in 2002 AIR SCW 1379; submi'r‘red Thai in The adv r'risemen‘r/nofifica‘rion issued by responden‘i' No.1 Public Service mmission i1' has nowhere been men'rioned fha'r 1he adminis-rra'rive perience musf be in fhe field of educa‘lion. If hae simply been men‘l’ oned in fhe eligibili‘ly cri'leria Tha'l' ‘lhe candida'le mus‘l' possess mini] um 3 years of adminis‘l'm‘iive experience. While elaborafing her rgumems, she further submi‘rTed Thai if we look info lhe same adver isemeni for fhe pos‘ls of D.I.E.T. and Lecturers if has been sdecifically rmen‘lioned ‘lha'r The adminisfrai'lve experience mus? be in fhe field of educafion and no such specific crii'eria was published for ‘rhe posf of Depu'l'y Direcfor (Educmjion), Therefore, if has To be inTerpreTed by reading The condiTiori‘ published in a simple manner and a plain meaning shouicl be given To The, condifion published in The adverTisemenT. IT connoT be read oTherwise and no casus omissus can be supplied in order To sTreTch The meaning adminisfra‘l’iviz experience To The ex‘l’enT of i GLDRJ FS/350—12/2000—50,000. 3aW WWW W E; mm aiamaa W 20G \ 5‘0 “m: 20a gaié‘m aw; {tg‘Ei‘aga} years experience in The field f educa‘fion and no? in efher department Having heard learned counse far 1'he par‘ries, I have perused re!evun1' documen‘l's, rules and case laws clTed by learned counsel for fhe pe‘l‘i‘rioner. As far as The arg en‘rs cf learned counsel for The peTiTioner ThaT every ciTizen is enT Tled for equal opporTunlTy in The maTTer of public employmenT and in The maTTer of public employmenT no posT can be monopolized for he parTicular class is concerned, argumenT of learned counsel for e peTiTioner is True and same is based on The law laid down by The H n'ble Apex CourT, buT we have To see wheTher The above principle has been violaTed in The presenT case. IT cannoT be legally dispuTed ThaT I e GovernmenT Public AuThoriTies glare enTiTled To fix The eligibiliTy cri‘i'eria for a parTicular posT and The candidaTe musT possess The qualifidaTion and eligibiliTy criTeria fixed by The Governmen‘r and only Those candidaTes who possess The requisiTe qualificaTion can apply for The posT. In ThaT lighT we have To examine The presenT case wheTher The eligibiliTy criTeria fixed by The respondenTs in any way is againsT The spiriT of law. As far as The maTTer of Blbh udaTTo MohanTy (supra) ciTed by learned counsel for The peTiTioner is concerned, adverTisemenT was issued by The employmenT exchange for filling up The posTs of ExTra Gil DRJwFS/35O—1 2/2000—50,000. W 200 aggéar WW faa’gaga) " a W Wm m ,q; WW ' $m W ‘3 311W WW? Depar‘rmen‘ral Ma'H'Car-rler-s and ha? adver'risemenf for a candiddfe fo become eligib!e qualificafion was fixed as dass-ST" and in pursuance of fha‘r applica‘rions were received and fhe mndidafes were selected and appoim'ed. Those appoinfmen s were challenged by Bibhuda‘rm Mohanfy on 1'he ground Thaf as er The guideiines, apar‘r from The educa'l'iomi qualificm'ion, ofher' co difion was fha‘r preference would be given 1'0 55C passed candida? s. Since The selected candidafes were no? 55C passed candida'res, Therefore, 'rhe selection was bad. Considering Those facfs ‘rhe Hon‘ble Apex Courf held in Tha‘r maf'rer fha‘l since fhe requisi'l'ion sen? by respandem‘ Na.4 To The Employmenf Exchange, candida‘l‘es having VII]: elass passed qualification were called for cansideraTion and in The requisi‘lion preference To The 55C passed candidate was noT menTion’d. The Hon'ble Apex CourT held ThaT in The firsT insTance in The re ‘uisiTion senT by The DeparTmenT To The EmpioymenT Exchange 8mg ciass pass qualificaTion was communicaTecl and same was pubished and accordingly candidaTes were inTerviewed and preferen ciause was noT given in The requisiTion. The Hon'ble Ape CourT furTher held ThaT The preference clause for higher q alificaTion does noT mean ThaT irrespecTive cf fulfillmenT of oTh r norms SSC passed have To be preferred. Where any rule or guid line provide preference in respecT of some higher qualifioaTion, iT only means The? all oTher requiremenfs GI. DRI——FS/3§0—12/2000—~50,000. l xz—HC—m 347% EH fem: aw m WW mmm‘gm wwwmiwTW Tm—beimqHeLa—§ewsan«§assessing-‘ gher educa‘rinmwtmn wiiLbe 7 i ’ preferred. If mnno’r, however, aw W, www, W Wf§¢yr§an¥w mg: Zgg 3W WW <Wm «H considered as The sole crifer-io for preference in seiacfion and app infmen‘r. Therefore, in fha‘l' marker +he candida‘res who were selecfe , They were in possession of minimum qualification Tho? is why The on'ble Apex Cour? held that The . selecfion was nof bad. On The focfs fhis case is of no heip To fine petitioner. If we look info fhe 3 of The Rules, for The posT of epuTy DirecTor The eligibiliTy criTer-ia is minimum 3 years of admini TmTive experience in The field of educoTion opor‘r from 10 years ching experience and in consonance wiTh The said Rule The GovernmenT senT The requisiTion proforma Annexure-R/i To The responden No.1 for filling up The posTs and in The experience clause iT was sp cifically menTioned ThaT 10 years of educaTional and adminisTroTive experience in which 3 years of experience on adminisTraTive si e and in The adverTisemenT which was issued by respondenT No.1 A ficfs of The presenT case, in Schedule ure—P/Z iT was menTioned ThaT 10 years Teaching experience aT Th Higher Secondary ievel and minimum 3 years adminisTraTive expe ience. Therefore, looking To The requiremenT of Rules and requi iTion Annexure-R/I iT cannoT be said ThaT The deparTmenT did ask for 3 years adminisTraTive experience in The field of edu aTion. ConjoinT reading of The Rules} requisiTion and The adverT enT makes iT clear ThaT The ‘. e n n i m W .n. WW m W mmm has been held by fhe Hon‘ble Apex t Rao (Dead) (Supra) +ha+ +he prim supp!ied by The Cour? excep? in me reason for i‘l' is found in 1"ne four cc fhe same time a casus omissus shoL Thu? purpose a“ The parTs of a s‘rm 'foge'rher and every clause of a reference +0 fhe confexf and o er clauses fhereof so fhaf The eonsfrueficn fa be pu'l’ on a parfi lair provision makes e consis'l'enf enactment of The whoie sfafufe. consfrucfion of a parficular clause leads 1'0 manifesi'ly absurd or anomalous resul'l’s which could nlo‘l' have been infended by fhe Legisiafuref If is an admiffed posifion issued for- fhe pas? of Bepufy Dir candi‘dofe mus? possess The requisi‘ field of educafion only so fhq'f he ( and effecfively in order 1'0 ndmini: fhm‘ purpose fhe posf is created. fields +0 my mind fo a greaf mwwiifgéwfm $afcmm adver‘risemen‘r miafes TD The experience in ‘the field of educai'ion. As :our‘r in ‘rhe ma‘Her Padmasunder'a :iple of casus omissus cannof be case of ciear necessity and when >r-ners of The sfc’xfu‘re ifself bu‘r a1- Id no? be rendiiy inferred and for 'ufe or section mus‘r be consTr-ued cfion should be consfrued wifh This would be more so if lifernl '“haf fhe adverfisemen’r has been ecfor (Educafion), fherefore, the 'e adminisfra'rive experience in the :an discharge his du'l'ies efficien‘l'ly ifer The school eduocfion and for Adminisfrafive experience in oTher exfen'l' connof be useful for Gil pRJ—FS/350‘l2/2000—50,000. @ inferpre'rafion can be given’ To The advertisemem‘ (AnnexuréP/E) is ‘ years of adminisfm'rive experience in fhe educa'i'ioml fieid and no‘i' otherwise Thm‘ is The oniy purposive nd meaningful interpre‘mtion can be given To The published cri‘i‘eria co difion. Any ofher- inferpre‘i'afion my lead 'i’o absurdity and some will be con'rmry fa 'i'i'ie spirit of The Rules, 1982 and requisi‘rion sen? by 1' v éovernmem’. 'rhe iearned counsel for I‘he ae‘ri'i’ioner final in The same adver‘iise en‘l' for pos‘i Nos. 2 and 3 if has been specifically men'rioned ‘rha'i' 'H'ie candidai’e musf possess adminisfra‘rive experience in ihe fiel of educa'l-ion, whereas for- 'l'lae )osT No.1 ThaT is Depuw Direcfqlr ‘(Educa‘riom i‘r has nof been l perience chuse pubhshed in ‘rhe f The candidcwe musf havz 3 As far as The orgumen‘r specifically men‘i'ioned Tha‘i' 1'lne adminisi'r‘a‘l'ive experience mus‘i‘ be in %the field of education. As has been discussed above fhai ihe eligibili‘i’y criferia which has been published in +he Annexure-P/Z some has 1'0 be in‘i'erprefed in :onsgnance wiTh 'rhe requiremen’f of The Rules and The Rules specifically laid down fha‘i' for fhe: posi' of Depu‘iyDireci’or +he :anciidai'e musf possess 3 years adminis‘rrai'ive experience in The field )f educa‘iion, therefore, by noT mentioning fhe specific word adminisfrafive experience in education, looking fo fhe facfs and GL DRJ—FS/350—l2/2000—50,000. ; t a o WWW wawwm ‘ mwxwm E Wmwfiwm %;aimwé‘¥r r circums‘rances of ‘i'he caae, does of make any difference béoause firs? par? of This experience cl use is ‘1’hm' 'rhe. candidafe musf possess 10 years Teaching exper e up 1’0 Higher Secondary level and fhereaf'rer adding 1'he word “ " H' has been men'rioned fhaf fhe candidm'e mus? possess minimum years udminisfmfive experience. Second par? of fhis has To be r d wi‘l‘h firsf par‘i' and if both are read foge‘i'her Then oniy meaning w ich can be given 1'0 This is Thai The adminisTmTive experience musT be’ The fieid of Educo'rion only. Therefore, in View of 'l’he ab ve discussion, I om of i'he opinion fhof as per fhe adver‘lisemen'r The pos'l' of Depu'fy Direc‘ror (Educa'rion) ihe candidaie mus? h experience on ‘i'he adminisfra‘iive side in 'i'he field of educafion ly, as such fhe Public Service Commission has righi'ly rejected fhelappliéa‘rion of The pe‘rifioner. i i'l‘ y subsfence in The wri‘f pe'ii'l'ion, made easy. Cerfified copy as per Quies. i In fhe resulf, I do nof find some is liable To be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Casi is Borve 1 i i é GL VRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. \ f“ r V E i a d c i r e n