Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And
Case Details
1 NAFR VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9188 of 2023 1 - Namit Kumar S/o Shri Basant Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o House No.2210, Bazaar Chowk, Chisda, Post Jondhara, Tehsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhavan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director General Training (Dgt) Government Of India, Ministry Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship Employment, Exchange Building Library Avenue, Pusa Complex, New Delhi 110012. --- Respondents WPS No. 9336 of 2023 1 - Kamla Gupta W/o Shri Gauree Shankar Gupta Aged About 34 Years R/o Tetla, Tahsil Pussoure, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Employment And Training Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Department,
Legal Reasoning
Indrawati Bhawan, Block- 4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Bilaspur Division, Composite Building, 3rd Floor, Nehru Chowk, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Its Secretary, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 8992 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
1 - Dayanand Jayaswal S/o Shri Ramesh Jayaswal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Semaria, Post Nardala, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Chairman, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Vyapam Bhavan, North 3 Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9706 of 2023 1 - Smt. Vandana Shrivas W/o Mr. Atul Kumar Shrivas Aged About 29 Years R/o Mukut Nagar, Near Water Tak, Lakhe Nagar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Employment And Training, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block Iv, 1st Floor, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Cg Vyapam) Through Secretary/authorized Person, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block Sec-19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1148 of 2024 1 - Tarun Kumar S/o Lalit Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Lalit Dewangan Om Tellers, Near Sanskar Sadan, Parshuram Ward, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 4 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Employment And Training Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Employement And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2053 of 2024 1 - Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Lal Bahadur Jangde, Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 17/2, Goutiya Para Ward No. 13, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Employment And Training Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block -4, First Floor, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director (Establishment), Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block -4, First Floor, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Scrutiny Committee Directorate, Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block -4, First Floor, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 5 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Its Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, Norh Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners For State : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Mr. Raza Ali, Mr. Neeraj Choubey & Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocates Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy.G.A. & Ms. : : Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondent- Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate Central Government For Respondent- Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate CGVYAPAM Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18.02.2025 1. This batch of writ petitions involves identical issues, therefore, in order to decide the same, they are being clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. As identical and similar issue has been raised in all the petitions, hence, all the cases are being decided while referring WPS No. 9188/2023 (Namit Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) as master case. 3. The grievance of the petitioners, in all the petitions, are that the respondent authorities have rejected the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Training Officer (Mechanical, Diesel) 6 though the petitioners were in the merit list and in the present matter, the petitioner was at the top position in the merit list. The petitioners were not considered only on the ground that there is overlapping of about 3 days in getting Experience certificate as well as in the Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate obtained by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the order by which the candidature of the petitioners were rejected is not in accordance with law and hence, the petitioners in all the writ petitions are having common grievance. As such, the reliefs are almost identical in all the cases and for the sake of brevity, the relief sought by the petitioner in WPS No. 9188/2023 (Namit Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) is being taken and quoted hereinbelow :- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may call for records from the respondents. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash/Set aside letter dated 09/11/2023(Annexure P/10). 10.3. The Hon'ble court may further be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to grant appointment to the petitioner in the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator and Programing Assistant) at Industrial Training Institute. 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may grant cost of petition to the Petitioner. 10.5. The Hon'ble Court may grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the 7 present case in the interest of justice.” 4. The case as projected by the petitioners is like that the petitioners had applied for the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator and Programming Assistant) and they were hopeful that they will be selected for the said posts, however, vide letter dated 09.11.2023 issued by the Director of Employment and Training C.G., their candidature has been rejected on the ground that the CITS certificate course and teaching experience certificate is overlapping. It was the case of the petitioners that an advertisement dated 08.05.2023 was issued for recruitment to the post of Training Officer in the Government Industrial Training Institute, since the petitioners were having requisite qualification for the post of Computer Operator and Programming Assistant, they have put their candidature for the said post while filing prescribed format. The petitioner in the present case is a holder of National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) certificate from Government Industrial Training Institute Masturi, District Bilaspur and he was also having 3 years’ teaching experience. He obtained the CITS certificate and accordingly he was eligible to get 10 bonus marks for having CITS certificate. After filing of the application and upon due scrutiny, the respondent No.2 issued call letters for verification of the documents to the petitioners to be held on 20.08.2023. The petitioners as well as the similar situated persons were also directed to come up with various documents along with experience certificate. The petitioners obtained the 8 experience certificate from the places where they have worked and have got the documents along with experience certificate. In order to get requisite degree, the petitioner of the master case took admission in the SBS PVT ITOT, Kalanwali, Sirsa Haryana. Due to pandemic Covid-19, the admission for the session 2020- 21 was delayed and later on, the National Skill Training Institute (NSTI) gave provisional admission to the petitioner on 19.12.2020. The petitioner was provisionally admitted at Bhubaneshwar. Since the petitioner was working at ITI Hasod District Janjgir Champa, therefore, in order to take admission, he took permission from the concerned Principal of the ITI and on the basis of permission granted by the Principal, he persued his CITS course at Haryana. On 03.03.2021, in order to pursue CITS course, the petitioner resigned from his services on 03.03.2021. On 04.03.2021, the petitioner took admission to SBS ITOT Haryana and appeared in the final examination on 10.06.2022. The session for CITS course was from August 2020-21 but due to pandemic Covid-19, the admissions were delayed and the period of the course was delayed till June 2022. Though there was delay in session, however, in the mark-sheet, the session has been shown to be August 2020-21. The petitioners appeared for verification of his document and during the document verification, an objection was raised by the respondent authorities and the petitioners have duly answered all the queries and objections, despite that, their candidatures have been rejected. Hence, all the 9 writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned order/letter is absolutely bad in law, and the same deserves to be quashed as the petitioners are having more than enough experience certificates from two different institutions, which are alone sufficient for the appointment of the petitioners, but the said certificates have been ignored by the respondent No.2 without any justification. Even if 10 marks of the CITS has been reduced by the authority, then also the petitioner is having first position in the merit list. It is stated that a 5-member committee constituted by the respondent authority had examined the case of the petitioner and found that, there was no overlapping in the experience Certificate as well as the CITS certificate of the petitioner and submitted the report before the concerned respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. In pursuant to the direction dated 29.01.2025 issued by this Hon'ble High Court, the Director General of Training, Government of India has also submitted his affidavit before this Hon'ble High Court on 18.02.2025 along with the report of the committee constituted by them in respect of the petitioner in which had had also found that, there was no overlapping. 6. It is further stated that some of the petitions have been preferred on various grounds including the ground that if 10 additional marks allotted to the petitioner is deducted/subtracted, the candidature of the petitioner can very well be considered only on 10 the marks obtained in written examination. It is submitted that CITS qualification is not a mandatory qualification as per the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners, otherwise are eligible for the post of Training Officer, more so status of the petitioners was that the petitioners were working as a guest faculty not as a regular or contractual appointment and the petitioners received stipend on hourly engagement with a capped condition of maximum 100 hours and there is no obligation or requirement for the petitioner to seek permission for pursuing CITS course. It is further submitted that, apart from these submissions, it would be very relevant to mention that candidature of one of the employee namely Ritesh Sharma has already been considered by the respondent department. It is submitted that both the certificates are issued by statutory authorities and still are valid certificates in the eyes of law and thus the recruiting authority cannot invalidate/disbelieved/hold the same forged without authority of law. Accordingly, looking to the overall facts of the cases, all the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission advanced by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the CITS certificate obtained by the petitioners are not in accordance with law. It is stated that during verification of the educational qualification, certificates and mark-sheets, it was found that the petitioners have pursued their CITS Course during the Academic Session 2020-2021 from S.B.S. Institute of Training 11 for Trainers, Sirsa (Haryana), as regular students, which is overlapping of their teaching experience certificate from Industrial Training Institute, Hasod, Distt. Sakti (CG) from 02.03.2019 to 02.03.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioners have failed to submit any document that they took admission for academic session 2020-2021. Hence, the rejection of petitioners’ candidature as well as rejection of their representation is just and proper and there is no illegality in the said rejection. Hence, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed. 8. The respondent-Director General Training (DGT) has not filed return, however, they have filed their affidavit in respect of verification of CITS certificates of the concerned petitioners but instead of verifying their certificates as directed by this Court on 11.12.2024, they sought further time for verification of the CITS certificate. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the
Decision
documents appended with all the writ petitions. 10. From the perusal of the documents, it is apparent that the claim of the petitioners have been mainly rejected on the ground that they are overlapping while obtaining CITS certificate and, as such, the petitioners cannot be appointed on the ground of overlapping of the CITS certificate. According to the respondent authorities, the petitioners have obtained CITS certificate while doing their other courses which cannot be in accordance with law. 12 However, in spite of the opportunities given to the respondents, they have failed to file any document to substantiate their submission in respect of overlapping of the CITS certificate. The respondent No.3 was also granted time to verify the CITS certificate of the respective petitioners, however, the respondent No. 3 could not verify the same. Some of the petitioners have specifically pleaded that if in their cases, CITS certificate would not be considered and 10 qualifying marks would not be granted, then also they are entitled for appointment for the post of Assistant Officer. The CITS certificate is not necessary qualification whereas it is 10 qualifying marks which is necessary for the said certificate. Since the allegation made against the petitioners is in respect of the overlapping of CITS certificate has not been proved and further some of the petitioners are entitled to get appointment as Training Officer even without considering CITS certificate, the respondent authorities should have considered this aspect and should have passed appropriate orders in respect of each of the petitioners merely stating that there is overlapping, which will not be considered on the ground to deny appointment to the petitioners. The petitioners are qualified in all respect and, as such, the respondent authorities are under obligation to pass appropriate orders in respect of the respective petitioners. 11. Viewing with all aspects of the matters, this Court is of the opinion that rejection of the claim of the petitioners for 13 appointment to the post of Training Officer is not in accordance with law and, as such, their claim is required to be considered by the authorities concerned, in case of each of the petitioners while passing appropriate orders of appointment in respect of each of the petitioners, as overlapping of CITS certificate has not been substantially proved by the respondent authorities. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners were succeeded in raising their claim. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are hereby allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the claim of each of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in respect of each of the petitioners within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha