7^t%^ ^ ~^^^. \ ^^y/ 33 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CQRAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Guota, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Writ Aopeal No. 98 of 2007 Sandeep Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 85 another ORDBR For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Hon>ble Shri Justice Raieev Guota .5' ^--u^ ^ Sd/- Chief Justice Postfororder : S /05/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge :-: -^ '% %^^lfr~. ^^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shrillaieev Guota, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Writ Appeal No. 98 of 2007 ^D APPELLANT RESPONDENTS 1. Sandeep Kumar Sinha, Aged about - 25 years, S/o. Shri Nakul Sinha, R/o. Village- Jamgaon, Post Jamgaon, Tahsil- Balod, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through:- Secretary General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (Writ Appealjinder Section 2 Sub-Section (1) ofthe Chhattisearh High CourttAppeal to Division Benchl Act, 20061 Appearance: Mr, N.K. Chatterjee, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Govt. Advocate State/respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. for the ORDER (^"".05.2009) Following order of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 9th of October, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1649/2006 by the leamed Single Judge of this Court, the appellant/petitioner has flled this appeal. ^•^•^^ ..^ •^^^ 1.'^ ':1;"%^ j l%^'fr"; '^^,^' ^l Writ Appeal No. 98 of2007 (2) The Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The appellant/petitioner offered his candidature for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III. He appeared in the written examination and obtained 264 marks which according to the appellant was highest mark. He was not called for the interview. When he sought information, it was informed to hini by the Public Inforniation Officer, Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur that since the appellant has not obtained computer examination certificate from a board/institution recognized by the Mantralaya of the State, he was not qualified for fhe said post. It is at this stage, the appellant/petitioner filed the Writ Petition for the following relief(s):- "7. Relief: 7.1 That the respondent may be directed to declare him selected and allow the petitioner in the ensuing interyiew for the post ofAsstt. Grade-3. 7.2 Selection list for interview may be directed to be revised after including the name of petitioner. 7.3 That heavy cost of litigation and any other relief this Hon?ble Courts deems fit inay very kindly be granted. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the certificate produced by the appellant was not from the board/institution recognized by the State of ,.'-'^^^^^^ ^^^-, ;,;•."'. •^ •'^. ':'%.... '^-. Writ Appeal No. 98 of2007 ^ Chhattisgarh or the Union Government, therefore/ the appellant was not entitled to be called for the interview. (4) Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the advertisement nowhere states that the certiflcate must be from a board/institution recognized by the State Government or the Union of India. He would further submit that since the appellant had a certificate from an institute of New Delhi which was a registered institute, his candidature would have been accepted by the respondents. (5) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that the General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh has issued a list of recognized institutions by this State in which the appellant's institution is not there, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to be called in the inter^iew. (6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Writ Appeal as also the Writ Petition. (7) Educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Grade-III, as mentioned in the advertisement dated 24th of Augyst, 2005 are as under:- "(i) fsrto 4l^di4:- (3T) WWdft ^-3 :- 1. f^ft TTH^TT ffM TRcT ^ ^ccRR ^zto imm ^r ^tgTT (10+2) ^dN ^TT TIF?T R^Ryi^^i ^ ^n^cf? qi^^T c^ ffSR ^ c^ \ ^STT ^N 1^r / .^': ^ ^-^. ^' Writ Apneal No. 98 of 2007 2. Tfpq?TT HM 4gcT ^ fNt g^s^ ^ TT^§TT 25 ?T^ ^r N^R ^t 7T^T % ^N ^ ^T ^RPJT-^ 1 3. Wt W^\ W^ W-STT ^ ^T^T ^t Sin^/^yiPt'^t ^ ^ ^T f^cTPTT 1TRFT ^ PTsrr ^RT ^t cpr 10,000 ^t "f^RH g^T ^T cf^ f^" ~^ sri^Tpt t 1 " (8) Admittedly, the appellant had submitted a certificate from the NAC-MIT (Nationwide Council for Multipurpose Education and Information Technology), a private institute, which according to the appellant, is recognized by Union Territory of Delhi. This institute was never recognized either by the State of Chhattisgarh or by the Union Government. The respondents have contended that they have fbced the qualification that the candidates must have obtained computer certificate from the university/institution recognized by the State Government of Chhattisgarh or by the Union of India which yardstick they have applied to all the candidates. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material which would show that the said yardstick was voilativeof any statutory rules or the scheme prepared to conduct the examination. If such was the policy, uniformly applied by the respondents to all the candidates, the appellant/petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that he should have been called in the inter^iew, even without such qualification of having a certificate from the institution recognized by the State . of Chhattisgarh/Union of India fixed by the respondents. Only on account of not mentioning the words like "recognized by the State Government of Chhattisgarh" or the "Union Government" in the advertiseraent, will make no difference and the condition in the vatti ,—lte^^^ "^ ^^f^' , :.-a^ UM Writ Apueal No. 98 of2007 advertisement mentioned as recognized institute has to be read as the recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh or the Union of India. (9) Admittedly, the matter relates to the year 2005 and the interviews are already over long back, as informed by the counsel for the appellant/petitioner and in one sense, the petition for the above relief(s) has become infructuous. (10) In view of all this, we do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (11) No order as to cost. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge