ix cW INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASP CG WRIT PETITION NO 9L0 /2003 PETITIONERS . Ku. Swati Simankar, Djo - Shri Tularam Simankar , fAged about 18 year,R/o Near amal Talkles Bharkapara Ward NO 26 RaJnandgaQMC G) r47 “2 Ku Kamal Kall D/o Ramesh Kumar San, aged about 14 years, R/o Chaoni, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) . State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary of Health & Family Welfare D.K.S. Building, Raipur. . anchalak, Swasthya Sevayain, Raipur (CG) . Chief Medical & Health Ofhcer, Rajnandgaon(C.G.) . Union of India through Joint Seotetary (T) and Member Secretary, Ministry of Huma Resource Development (Department of Secondary and Higher Education) New Delhi Indla ’ V . » egistrar, Board of Secondary Education Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) f 1 ,S n V éa wm§HHOZ CZGmW>W% OOZw‘EaG‘EOZ Omgag HIGH COURT 43*: CHHA‘rTJS’” ‘(§*§ i E§LA$PU§3§ §Wzit Pstman under Artic§e 228/22? o? the Csnsiituiéan a? mdéa} Singie Eem'n : Hora’bie Shri Saiish K. ,i‘xgnihoiré, J Eeoer“ '— Ms Rem Kscnar caunsei mrthe petitmnars bhn MJ—lS. 8mm, Dy. Gavi. Advacaie fcmhe Estate. Ms Iéu Rani Das, counse§ fm the resaondert NQ 5 GRBER (WML‘ {Pasaad ar saws n5 day cf March, 20w} W§ih the consent 0f ieamed csunsei agpearing fig? me pemes, the petman is hearzj fina x: By this petiiiom the petitimem saek a difeciion i9 the aespsndent auiheritées t0 cansicier their case$ mr seaactian i0 éhe pasi a? Mu!’t§pumose Wcman Hearth Werker. The facts, in brief: for dispcsai 0f the case, as pragecied by %he pe%iiicner$, am ihai pursuant i0 ihe ad‘s/emsemeni dates’ 2&3 0-2362 {Annexure - A/2} ihe getiiianars aiong wiih Other cand§dates appgied far the p03? of Mu§§purpose Waman Hea§€h WorkeL They wbméiied requisike testimam‘ais aiso. The candidaiure of the petii§ane$ was net considered by the {espcnden‘x authariiées an the gmund ma: ‘the cemficafes suiamiiied by ihe pe‘tiiiongm were mt fmm me resogn§z€d Beam; arm accardingiy they have mt been camsiderw far A. N WW3 PF :TIQN MG} gm GF 2&3 3E1"? 3CNEF€S Ka. Swati $§mankar €§ An§ihef Versus- R£SPGNBENTS Eaie a? Chhai€§sg&rh 8: b). saiecticn Gn i‘ne posi of Muiiipumase Woman Heaith Worker. Thus, ihis petition. Learned ccunsei appearing far the petitiamrs contended ihat in spite Bf the fact that the peimoners are in passewion 0f requisite quaiificatien their candidaiua’e has nut beer: considered by ihe respendent authoféties in ara iélegal am aa’bitrary‘ The sshaa! namely; Uday Uchata Madhyamik Vidyaiaya from where the petitieeers have passed the Higher Secondary Exam§nat§on has been duh; recognized by ”me Chhatt§sgarh Board of Secondary Education. Even the Governmeni of indie by é’ie noiifioafion (63) dated 26-7-2091 (AmexuraP/Q} recognized me ‘Prethme’ Examinaeion certmcate issued by Hindi $ahitaye Sammeian; Iaiiiai’iabad. Contradicting ihe coneniions of the oetitioners, ieamed i counsei appearing fer the Siaie makes eubmiesions in support ei ihe impugeed aciion 0i - me respeeeeni euihori‘iiee. As per the advertisement the candidates who were gassed the if?“ Board Examinatien in 1G+2 system er Higher Secondary Examination in the aid system having subjects of Physics, Chemistry & Bioiogy can appiy tar the post of Muttipurpose Woman Heatth Worker. Along with the apptication forms the petitioners submitted mark sheets of iPrathma! Examination certificate issued by Hindi Sahitaye Sammeian, Atiahabad. Thereafter: on verification of the authenticity of the certificates oi the petitioners, ihe 01 OJ Chhaitisgar'n Board of Examination wide iis ietter dated 23-6-2693 (Annexure — RH); mfarmed tha‘é the ceri‘n‘icate 0f ‘Praihma’ Examination issued by Hindi Sahiiaya $ammeian, Aiéahabad is nct recognized by the Chhawsgam 80am ef Examination. Thus; the getitisnas are not emi€ied t0 any we§§ei 6. ! have examinad the riva! cantemions 0f the §earned caunsei appearmg far me pariies, perused the pieadings am the lfwiocuments appended thefetg. Clause 3 0f the advertiwmeni d"ted 25-10-2GG2 (Amexure — M2) \Jery speci§icai§y pmides that 3W¥23m 785‘ ¢Q+2 WM Wu €¥ 10$: a? 3%v* gem W W:w%;‘ $4: W a Wm w Wain v§zw$mg W W . , W =‘h"r a gmw W q; 2% ma W w g ‘mn «L 9W '1 % a’. Thus, the petitionez’s ougm t0 have submitted theis’ agpiicatian famns aaang WEih certificates as per the requirement. Gavemment of mdie, Minietry af Human Reseurces Geveiopmentg Department Of Secondary 8: Higher Educatien vide naiification (63) dated 26-'?—2Gm (Annexure — PfQ) recogmzed the ‘Prathma’ Examinatian being canducted by Hinai Sahiiaya Sammeaan, Ailehabad fer ihe purpcee 3f empioyment under the Centre! Gevemmen’t oniy. This recognition was for a period of three years. The said \ mirrma‘éiron is mt appiicabie fer the purpose er empiaymeni \ under zhe 3tate Gevemmem. in ihe case en hand, ihe deséred quaiifécaiéon is matricmatian paSS. Reiiarzce of the petitieners on a ieiier dated 3-4-2002 of the Regis‘u’an Chhattisgar‘n Board cf Secandary Educaiion, Rejpun that ‘Prathma! Examinaiion being conducted by Hindi Sahiisaya Samme§an, Ai§ahabad (UP) is arecegnized is ncticed m be reéected, ii is cieariy mentionad in 'the said kite; ‘that ‘F’fat‘nma’ Examination cem§icate issued hy Hméi Sahitaya Sammelan, Niahabad may be vaiki after passing the genera! Eng§ish test Th§s is mi the case a?“ ihe petitioners ih$ it} addkiorz i9 ‘Praihma’ ExamEna€ion cer£i§icate, ihe peimonem have passed the geaerai Engiish test ceaducted by the MP. Beam of $econdary Edecatien, Bhepai; Further contention of the pet§tioners that ihe schooi §.e. Uday Uc‘natar Madhyamik Vidyaiaya fram whew the petitkmers prosecuted theiv siudies issued a iettea' dated 1-?2—2G02‘ (Annexure — N8) to ihe Shief Medhai & Heafn Officer, Rajnandgaon, is of m heip to the peimonere so fa¥ as its aff§§§atiori is concerned: €he¥e is a dif§erence between ‘ef§?§ai§on’ and ‘recegmtioni ‘Affiiiation’ is omy for the puipose of preparing and presenting the siua‘ents fer examination and ‘yecognitéon’ is a confirmatéen that an ed éone by the other auihonfy was aui'noezed. he Suereme Ccuz’t in ‘me Wincipai anti o‘thers vi The :esiding mike! and Qtneys1, (reserved as under : 1S. @ 6 .‘affi!ia’ti0h’ and ‘recoani%icm’. Whereas ‘affmaiion’, it may be nEted, is mean: to preyare and wesmt "ihe studerats far gunk examinaiéang ‘recognition‘, a? a prévate scheei is far aha? wrpcases memianesi im the Act and i? is uniy when the $chaoi i$ recognized by the ‘apmspriate authcriw ihat it becomes amenabie ta Other pmvisions 9f the Act. Again the faci that the 36mm was in existence at the commeacement of the Act cannet comer on ét the stems cf a recognized school and make E subjec? t0 the provieiene of the Act and the ruies made thereundey'. To ciothe i'k with that statue, it is eeseniia§ that it sheuid have been a ‘receng§eed private schoei’ as ecntempiated by the Aci. Nething has, hewever, beer; i‘zmeght ta our neiice 1:0 Show that §i was an ‘exéeting echeai’ as defined in S. Z {j§ cf the Act, §n View ef ali this, we have no hesiiatien in heldmg that ‘zhe Schoui was net a ‘resegnieed "private scheei’ en me re§evant date and was, therefere, net emenabie {a the provieiene of the Act.” Fm the reasons mentioned hereinabave, It appeaa’e that ihe pe‘ziiioneye have not abtained the eeeeniia§ quaiiiice‘iion imm the institute which is gYecegmzed by the State Gevemment. Thus, $h§s eeuri is of the cens§dered opihieh that the decie§en 0f the respondent autherMee fer net eoneiderthg the candtdatere 0f the petitionete tor theta’ eeiectteh t0 the pest e? Muitipurpese Womae Heai’ch Werker §e just aed preper. There is e9 eerversity, irreguiarity or iiiegahty. im 4-Lhe resuli, the Wei petitien is dismissed. Ne order aste casts. Sd/- Sau'sh K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge €2. r d