W)k 31MGLE aEagw l U? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (S)NO.3j€ I‘Qgggfj m wq WRIT PETlTiON :Sachin ku. Pradhan S/o Sushi! Chandra Pradhan Aged about 25 years, Caste— Kolta, R/o— Village Girna, P‘O— Sukhipali P.S- Pithora, Tehsil— Mahasamund Dist— Mahasamund (C.G) PETlTlONER Versus 1’ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Deptt.‘ , D.K.S Bhawan. Raipur Dist— Raipur (C.G) 2. Chief Executive Officer, e/ Janpad Panchayat Pitthora, Dist— Mahasamund (C.G) Gram Panchayat- Gima §/Through Sarpanch / 3. P O Sukhrpah Vrkaskhand Plthora Tehsrl— Mahasamund, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G) 4. Rankmani Pradhan Slo— Shouknal Pradhan Aged about 25 years, Caste— Kolta, t R/o- Village Girna, P.O— Sukhlpali P.S— Plthora, Tehsll- Mahasamund Dist— Mahasamund (C16) f\ / 2 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. K .OOW R }‘IEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILA$PUR m ie Banch: Ha ‘NRW PETITIQN §S§ NQ.35$ 0f 2§§§ Petéiianer Sachin Ku. Pradhan I Versus I State of Chhattbgarh and other$ _M Writ Petitian under Articie 228 0f the Camstmiian m“ §m§ia ’ble Shri Manmdra Mohan Shiivasiava J x. Raggmdemm Pregemp » Shri H. S. Ahluwalia, counsei for the petitioner, Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respendent Nev‘L Shri Chandresh Shrivasiava, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3. None for respondent No.4, though served. ORAL ORDE% K (Passefi on ihis 21“ of June, ’2911) This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order deter? 05-1 1—2007 (Annexure ’P-l) passed by the Sub Divisienal Officer in apnea? in the metter of appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Pancheyat Girna vide order dated 12-12-2005 (Annexure P-5) abpeinting respondent No.4 as Penchayat Karmi. 2. Advertisement was issued on 14-09-2005 by the {:nief Executive Officer, Pithora for appointment to the post of Penohayat Karmi .in Gram Panchayat Girnar. ln response to which, the petitioner es weft as respondent No.4 submitted their application. After compteting the process. of selection, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 10-12-2005 (Annexu‘re P-4) rejecting petitioher’s candidature. Thereafter, the reSpondent No.4 was appointed as P/‘a’n'ohattat Kermi vtde order detect 7 t2~t242Q05 (Annexure P-5). The appointment of respondent No.4 was $ n 3 @000 chanenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal befare the Sub Divi$ionai Officgr, Mahasamund. The said appeal was dismissed vide order datw 05- 11—209? (Annexure P-t). Aggrieved by the order of dismissat 0f appeai, the 'petitipner preferred sesond appeal before the Collector and the Colieotor vide his order dated 23-08-2008 dismissed the appeal on the ground that second appeai is not maintainable against the appeltate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner, instead of preferring revision, preferred writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is possessed of High School pass certificate issued by the Madhya Pradesh s State Open School, Bhopal and thereafter,the petitioner has passed Higher Secondary School Certificate (Vocational Course) Examination, 2004 recognized by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Eduoation, Reipur and mark sheet has been issued in his favour, placed on reeord es Annexure P6 (Collectively). He submits that the certificate of High Schooi Examination issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Open School, Bhopal and Higher Secondary School Certificate (Vocational Course) issued m! the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur is liable to be recognized for the purpose of considering petitioner’s quatification white assessing his eligibility in terms of Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 19% (Annemire P-7). Learned counsel submits that certificate of High School Examination obtained by the petitioner from Madhya Pradesh State Open Schooi, Bhopal should be treated as equivalent to certificate of High School Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education and further that l Higher Secondary School Certificate (Vocational Course) granted by the ‘ . l Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur i$ siabfe ta he treated as equivai'ent to Higher Secondary Schooi Certificate granted by the Beard of Secondary Education for regular courses. He further submiie that the \ other ground, on which he has found to be diequatified, doee not etand, because the cousin of the petitioner, who is Panch, is not covered by the definition of reiative as defined under expianation to 8eotion $9 of Chhattisgarh Pahchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. He further submits that even though, Second appeal was not found mainteinabie, the Coiiector, who happens to be Revieionai Authority under the rutee ought to have treated it as appeai and decided the matter on merits, 4. On the other hand, iearned counsel for respondent NotiStete ae also learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 would suhmit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring revision, which he did not avait. lt is submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Collector, by which, the second appeal was dismissed as not maintainabie. Having accepted and acquiesced in that order, the petitioner ought to have hrst exhausted the remedy of revision available to him under Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Appeal & Revision) Rules, 1995. it is further contended by learned counsel for the respondents that as far as rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is concerned, the same is proper and justified because under Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995 (Annexure P-7), minimum qualification prescribed is that the candidate should have passed Ciass-Xth or possessed High School Pass Certificate under 10+2 pattern, whereas certificate of passing of 10*“, which is relied upon by the petitioner has not f been issued by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, but the ’ m0 petitioner haS obtained certificate from Madhya Pradash Staie Open $chooi, Bhopal and ihe petitioner has not piaced on record. any materiai to show that High Schooi Cettificate granted in favour of the petitioner by that netitution has been recognized by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. it is further submitted that as far as the certificate of Higher Secondary Schooi Examination is concerned, the same hae been granted to the petitioner only in reepect of vocational course undertaken by the petitioner and not as a reguiar student, therefore, both the quaiitioations poeeessed by the petitioner cannot be equated with the minimum quaiification specified and required under Panchayat Karmi Yojna, tgga Learned counsel for the respondents lastly submitted that the matter of equivalence can be laid down only by the competent authority and the petitioner could not claim equivalence in the absence of there being ognition either by the Board of Secondary Education or appropriate order by the State Government, which has laid down the essentiai minimum qualification for the said post, 5, Though, learned counsel for the petitioner vehementiy submitted that in the circumstances, the petition may not be dismissed oniy on the ground of existence of alternative remedy, considering the totatity of the facts and circumstances of the case, l am of the View that looking to the nature of controversy involved in the matter, which requires consideration of equivalence of qualihcation, it would be proper that the matter is considered by the Revisional Authority i.e. the Collector. Though, it is weil settied law that existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar against exercise / of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, at i r , the 3ame time, it is a rule of discretion t0 be exerci$ed by the {Dom depending upon the facts and circumstances of aach case. What i find i$ that the controvemy invoived in the matter requiree coneideratian pertaining to equivaience of the qualification obtained by the petittoner with that of the High School Certificate/Higher Secondary School Certificate exemina’tien, which are recognized by the Chhettisgarh Board of Secondary Et‘jucation. There is no material on record to show that the Board of Secondary Education of Chhattisgar'n has recognized those two quaiificatione possessed by the petitioner as equivalent looking to the minimum qualification prescribed in the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, 1995‘ However, the rule making authority i.e. the State Government, which has laid down the qualification could always, lay down the equivalence This aspect can be looked into by the Revisional Authority i.e. the Collector by seeking appropriate direction from the State Government, if neceesary from the Board of Secondary Education as well. 6. ln View of the aforesaid discussion, l am not inciined to go into the aspect of equivalence, as it is well settled that the Court cannot lay down equivalence of qualification. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the preeent case, the petitioner ought to have first approached the Revieionai Authority, wherein this aspect of the matter would be enquired into. However, there is one aspect of the matter, which needs to be noticed. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court'by filing Writ Petition challenging the order of appointment of respondent No.4. That writ petition 5 wee dismissed as not maintainable'won the ground that the petitioner has an I alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner did prefer appeai, which was ‘ dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer. and thereafter, the petitioner was, wrongly advised to prefer second appeal, which does not iie umier tho ruies, whereas the petitionei had alternative remedy of revieioh, The Collector, who seems to be Revisional Authority, dismissed the eeeohd appeal as not maintainable. 7. Under these circumstances‘ the petitioner i5 granted liberty to fite revision before the Collector and assail the oorrectnese and vatidity of the otder peseed by the Sub Divisional Officer. ln case, revision ie preferred by the petitioner within a period of 45 days from today, the same eheti be considered by the Collector/Revieional Authority without going into the queet‘ron of limitation, but on merits. All the issues, which have ‘oeen raised by the petitioner, may be raised before the Revieionel Authority. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finaiiy disposed off. No orders as to cost. Menindra Mohan Shriy/estava JUQiiE TUMANE Sdl- //, 'A :\”‘JV