CD ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} WRIT PETITION (S) N0. t^(-S~ OF 2009 ^ Holika Prasad Kaiwartya, S/o Shri Nikram Kaiwartya, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Khursula, Post -<v PETITIONER : \^\ ^^••^s^ ,^.^'^^ Office Pavni, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) ^ ..^...C5" y^ ^" RESPONDENTS j ,.^ii^^^^<^^ :.:!y.^ VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Commissioner, Land Records, Chhattisgarh, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 3. 4. The Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) ^ Chandrashekhar Patel, S/o Balak Patel, aged about not known, R/o Village Ankira, Tahsil farsabahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) ^" Address as per the order c/o Shri Bhushan Patel, Junadeeh Road, Lailunga, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -<^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON (8) No. 4545 of2009 PETITIONER : Holika Prasad Kaiwartya VER8U8 RESPONDENTS : State ofClihattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTLTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Slii'i P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shii N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Shi'i R.S. Patel, Advocate for the respondent No.4. ORDERrORAL) (Passed on 04th day ofMay, 2010) 1. By this petition, fhe petitiojtier seeks a direction to the respondent No. 3 toconsider the petitioner for selectioii in Patwari Training School. 2. Leamed counsel appearmg fbr the petrtioiier sybmits that pursuaM to the advertisemenfdated 13.08.2008 (Aimexure P/7), the petitioner applied for selection and appointment on the post of Patwari. A ^witten exammation was conducted on 15.12.2008 by the Chliattisgaili Professional Examination Boai'd aiid the result was declared thereof. Thereafter, counselling was conducted but the petitioner's candidature was denied on the ground that he was not in possession of one year computer application (diploma) certificate fi'om a recognized iiistitution. 3. Sliri Sahu, further submits that the pctitioner is m possession of computer diploma certificate fi'om the institution recognized by the Govei-nment of Chhattisgarh. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner does not have requisite qualification of computer application (diploma) certificate, even then the respondent authorities ouglit to have considered tlie candidature of the petitioner as in the advertisement itself^ it was clearly provided that the Pa^aris who are selected for appointment in the Scheduled Ai'eas, 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 petitioner. Fuilher, the Departnient of Revenue and Disaster Management, Raipun regulating the service conditions of the Patwaris, by circular dated r"\ 21.07.2008 provides for the same qualification as published in the advertisement. Clause 6 ofthe said cu'cular reads as under: ^Nflctcji^T ^t ^TRT^N ^ST^ ^^mp^? ^IT 'w^r wr^K ^q^T ^jv^l ^i^4^K ^ W^rai ¥T1<T Iff'^iT ^ 4?^^C^ yl<-ft^^FT sre^f (feiciNr) srf^pf ^tm i w^ ^ ^s^a ^ ^ TTC^lft 19rRTW3T t^ ^TPt^ ^^^<J|^T ^t 1^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^w^ y^f^i?^f ^ar (fe^crt^T) W^<T ^FH ^l^rpt 4. Shri Sahu further submits that tliis Court has ah'cady dealt with the aforeasaid provisions in Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma \\ State of Chhattfsgarh &€mothe^ and other comiected matters. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent subimfs that the petitioner does iiot belong to Scheduled Ai'ea, therefore he is required to possess one year computer diploma certificate from the recognized institutes, which in fact, the petitioner does not have. The diploma certificate is not from any recognized institirte as required under eircular dated 7 June, 2007 (.^Lnnexiire R/l). Thus, the caiididature oftlie petitioner has rightly been rejected and he may not be entitled to the benefit ofclause (3T)(5) ofthe advertisement dated 13.08.2008. 6. The issue with regard to the term 'affiliation' and ''recogiiition' has also been considered and decided by this Court m the niSiUQT of Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma (supra), ^lierein this Court, relying on a decision of Supreme Court in The Principal & Others v. the Presiding Offwer and others^, obseived that there is a difference between 'affiliation' and 'recogiiition'. 'Afiiliation' is only for the purpose of preparing and presentiiig the students for exaniination and 'recogiiition' is a confimiation that an act done by the other authority was authorised. 7. It appears that the petitioner has not obtained the essential qualification i.e. computer application (diploma) certificate from the institute which is recognized either by the Govemment/Semi GoYemnient/ Govemment oflndia or the State Govermiient, the recognition taken by the aforesaid mstitute from other departments caimot be held as recognition as the reeognition must be as per the circular dated 7th June, 2007 (Amiexure R/l). '-W.P.(S)No. 4555 of 2009, decidedon 15.03.2010 2AIR1978SC344 ^^ar^e>^ 1^<'\ f ^.^ '^// ^ Go^?ii 8. Further, on bare pemsal ofclause 6 ofthe cii'cular dated 21.07.2008 and Rule 3(4) ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Records Manual, which is ^lear and unambiguous, provides that the candidate seleCted for Patwari Traming in the Scheduled .4rea would be required to obtaiii computer application (diploma) certitlcate within aperiod ofoneyear. The criteria is thatthe candidate should be selected for training in the Scheduled Ai'ea and not that the candidate should belong toScheduled Area. In tfae instaiit case, admittedly, the petitioner is selected for Patw'ari Training and he may acquire the requisite qualification of computer application (diploma) certiflcate within a period of one year and his candldature cannot be rejected on this count that his computer diploma certiflcate is not from any recognized institute. Tlius, the contention of respondent-State is unsustainable. 9. In vievv ofthe above, the respondent authorities are directed to prepare a fresh merit list and consider the candidatiire of the petitioner for selection in Patwari Training School, subject to verification ofthe facts, if the petitioner acquires all other requisite qualifications, except computer application (diploma) certificate from a recognlzed iiistitute as provided under circular dated 7.6.2007 (Amiexure R/l). 10. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.AgnihoW Judge