3 £ '? G IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) w.P.s NoMuG‘ /2009 Shri PETITIONERS: Ram Kumar Ratre, S/o Rameshwar Prasad, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Tundra via Katgi Tahsil Ki'fdol district Raipur (CG) Vilas Kumar Sidar, S/o Shri Bundru Ram, aged about 27 years, R/o Gram Bhajpur Tehsil Dabra District Janjgir Champa (CG) Shiv Dayal, S/o Shri Kirit Ram, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Bhajpur Tehsil Dabra District Janjgir Champa (CG) Devarshi Kumar, S/o Bhurwa Ram, aged about 28 years, R/o‘ Village Devhara Tehsil Bhilaigarh District Raipur (CG) Banshee Lal, S/o Shri Nanhu aged about 26 years, R/o Village Nuniyakachar Tehsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG) Krishna Kumar, S/o Shri Bulaki Ram, Aged about 32 years, R/o Village Lormi, District Bilaspur (CG) r Q? ,n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4461 of 2009 : Ram Kumar Ratre & others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate and Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL ' (Passed on 09 day of April, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioners for selection in Patwari Training School. Learned 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 of Patwari. A written examination was conducted o'n 21.09.2008 by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board and the result was declared thereof. Thereafter, counselling was conducted on 15.12.2008 but “the petitioners’ candidature was denied on the ground that they Were.not in possession of one year computer application (diploma) certificate nom a recognized institution. 3. Shri Pali mrther submits that the petitioners are in possession of computer diploma certificate from the institutions recognized by the Government 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 W ; ~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 service 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: ‘Warimawaémmmmmw 31am W W d mat Ema W ii mar Wmasaf(%m)meiml maimiaa aa$mmmegmmmaniwa§$ mmammm(m)mmm 311m” 4. Shri Pali further submits that this Hon’ble Court has already dealt with the aforeasaid provisions in Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh & anotheri and other connected matters. 5. Learned 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/l). Thus, their candidature has rightly been rej ected and they may not be entitled to the benefit of clause (30(5) ofthe advertisement dated 13.08.2008. 6. The issue with regard to the term ‘affrliation’ and ‘recognition’ has also been considered arid decided by this, Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma (supra), 'wherein this Court, relying on a decision \ \ ‘W.P.(S) No. 4555 0f2009, decided on 15.03.2010 ,- of Supreme Court in The Principal & Others v‘ the Presiding Oricer and othersZ, observed that there is a difference between ‘affiliation’ and ‘recognition’. ‘Afflliation’ 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 authorised. 7. It appears that the petitioners have not obtained the essential qualification i.e. computer application (diploma) certificate from the institutes which are recognized either by the Government/Semi Government/Govemment of India or the State Government, 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/l). 8. Further, on bare perusal of clause (Annexure P/3), clause 6 of the circular dated 21.07.2008 and Rule 3(4) of the ChhattisgarhLand 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 Jashpur and they may acquire the requisite qualification of computer application (diploma) certificate within a period of one year and their candidature! cannot be rejected on this count that their i) M computer diploma certificate is not from any recognized institute. Thus, the contention ofrespondent—State is unsustainable. In View of the 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 of the 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/l), in the light of order rendered by this Court in Santosh Kumar Vishwakarma (supra). Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. ‘i w l y V t Amit lO. a ‘ Sd/- f. if Satish K. Agnihom I . Judge " 1 r 77 r