1 - Smt. Gitanjali Sahu W/o Shri Khomendra Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Employment And Training, Skill
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:11062 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1635 of 2025 1 - Smt. Gitanjali Sahu W/o Shri Khomendra Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post - Kukrail, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Employment And Training, Skill Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- No. 4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Secretary Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, Through Secretary, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 4 - Joint Director (Training) Regional Office, Industrial Training Institute, Durg, Area - Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned letter/memo dated 14.11.2024, issued by the respondent No.-4 Annexure P-1. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to re-consider case of the petitioner for appointment for the post of “Training Officer Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing, Trade” within stipulated period.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement for the post of Training Officer total posts were advertised 366, during selection process posts were increased by 3 the respondent No.-2 and total posts were 920, as per advertisement candidate can apply number of posts. The petitioner applied for three posts i.e. Fitter, Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing & Draughtsman Mechanical. “Note: There was no restriction for apply numbers of posts.” 3. The applications of the petitioner were found to be correct, subsequently respondent No.-3 issued an Admit Cards in her favor for all three subject i.e. Fitter, Draughtsman Mechanical and Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing. The respondent No.-3 conducted examination, but petitioner appeared in two examination A & B i.e. for the post of Training Officer, Fitter and Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing, she could not attend in examination C i.e. Draughtsman Mechanical. As per online method, petitioner fulfilling Colum as she has obtained certificate of Craft Man Instructor Training Certificate . “ Yes” Because in the form, there is no separate subject wise box for CITS. After examination result was declared by respondent No.- 3, in which petitioner obtained total Marks 39.948 (in examination A), and obtained total Marks 78.085 ( in examination B). “A. Examination Fitter-39.948. B. Examination Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing-78.085.” 4. The petitioner was not entitled for appointment for the post of 4 Training Officer Trade Fitter, but it is important to mention herewith that she is entitled for appointment for the post of Training Officer Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing. Because, for Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing cut of number was for woman UR 61.436 and for woman О.В.С. 57.447. The petitioner obtained total marks as 78.085, she is topper in Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing (in woman category). Therefore, respondent No.-2 issued counseling letter in favor of the petitioner for the post of Training Officer, Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing. She has no certificate of Craft Man Instructor Training for trade Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing, therefore, 10 Marks allotted to her as Adhiman will be deducted. The woman in General Category subject of Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing obtained marks as 61.436, OBC category woman obtained marks as 57.447, petitioner belongs to OBC category, she obtained total marks of 68.085, which is highest among woman general category. In Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing trade, therefore, she is entitled for appointment for the post of Training Officer Trade Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing. The petitioner has certificate of CITS Trade-Fitter, she has no CITS certificate of Trade Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing, therefore, she is not entitled 5 for 10 Marks as Adhiman for Trade Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing, therefore time to time she moved an application before respondent No.-2 and informed that she is not entitled for 10 Marks of Adhiman, because she has no CITS Certificate for Trade Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing. After a result respondent No.-2, issued a letter to the petitioner for verification of her documents and fixed her posting at Govt. I. T. I. Dallirajhara, petitioner attend process, but appointment order was not issued in her favor, all of sudden, without any notice, the respondent No. 2 has rejected the candidature of the petitioner while mentioning that "THE CITS CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE CANDIDATE IS OF FITTER TRADE WHICH IS NO RELEVANT TO APPLIED POSTS". The Craft Man Instructor Training Certificate is not necessary qualification for the post of Training Officer, the petitioner submitted detailed representation before the authority, but they did not considered, therefore, she approached Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and filed writ petition for her claim, her case was registered as WPS No. 7456/2023 and, on 21.09.2023 matter came-up for hearing and final order was passed. The Hon'ble Court has passed an order, whereby granted liberty to the petitioner to file detailed representation before Director and also granted interim protection that one post 6 shall kept vacant for which petitioner has applied. On 27.09.2023, petitioner submitted detailed representation before respondent No. 2 along with copy of petition, but respondent No.- 2 did not consider representation of the petitioner in proper manner and rejected her claim 13.10.2023 saying that "New merit list cannot be prepared after deducting 10 numbers granted her as Adhiman". It is undisputed fact and clear from the record/documents that the petitioner is meritorious candidate, she obtained total marks as 68.085 (after deducting 10 Marks as wrongly granted to her as Adhiman), which is highest makrs in general category woman in Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing Trade, therefore, she is entitled for appointment for the post of Training Officer Trade Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing. The petitioner filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court against the action of the respondents and challenging her rejection letter dated 13.10.2023, her case was registered as WPS No. 9339/2023, on 18.07.2024 matter came- up for hearing, after hearing the parties, this Hon'ble Court has directed to the respondents authorities to keep one post vacant for which petitioner has applied/claimed, and on 18.07.2024, final order was passed. Para No.-3, State Counsel on instruction submits that a committee was constituted by the State Government to look into the grievances of the petitioners and 7 that committee has given a report, a photocopy of which is placed on record, which is favorable to the petitioners. He submits that the cases of the petitioners would be considered in the light of the report given by the committee so constituted by the State Government. On 05.08.2024, the petitioner informed about order dated 18.07.2024 passed by this Court to the respondent No. 2 and prays for issuance of order of appointment for the post of Training Officer, but respondent No.-2 has not issued order of appointment in favor of the petitioner. On 14.11.2024, the respondent No.-4 sends a letter to the petitioner, whereby it was informed that he is not competent to considered and decide her claim". Hence present petition for quashing letter dated 14.11.2024, and for appropriate direction to the respondent No.-2 for consideration of issuance order of appointment for the post of Training Officer Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing, within stipulated period. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order her candidature for the post of Training Officer has been rejected while considering that in the CITS certificate marks have been awarded to the petitioner only on the ground of marks awarded in CITS which is not required for the post of Training Officer which the petitioner has applied. He further submits that she has moved a representation stating that the marks awarded 8 for the CITS certificate may be reduced and thereafter also the petitioner has secured sufficient marks to be appointed as Training Officer Work Shop Calculation & Engineering Drawing as she has also applied for the said post along with post of Fitter for which CITS certificate would be relevant, however, since she has applied for other post also she may be considered two other post without their being certificate of CITS. 6. In charge Joint Director has rejected her representation stating that he is not competent to pass such an order. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the representation was required to be decided by the Director who is the appointing authority and the petitioner should have approached before the appointing authority i.e. the Director the respondent No. 2 for redressal of her grievance. 7. From the perusal of the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as from the perusal of the documents appended with the petition , it seems that the petitioner has applied for three post i.e. Fitter, Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing & Draughtsman Mechanical. For the post of Fitter and Draughtsman Mechanical Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate is required which the petitioner is lacking. However, she is eligible in all respect for appointment to the post of Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing. It seems that 9 she has obtained sufficient marks for the appointment of said post i.e. Training Officer and Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing. If the petitioner is eligible to be appointed for the post of Training Officer and Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing while obtaining required marks then there would be no reason to deny her appointment for the said post only on the ground that she could not be qualified for the post of Fitter and Draughtsman Mechanical in which CITS certificate is required, she cannot be denied appointment. Time and again, the petitioner is approaching for redressal of her grievances, however, inspite of several order passed by this Court, the respondents for one on another reason are not redressing the grievance of the petitioner. In the recent memo dated 14.11.2024 respondent Incharge Joint Director has stated that he is not competent to pass any order in respect grievance of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was under obligation to forward and direct the petitioner to approach before the competent authority i.e. Director, however, he has not did so and inspite of referring the matter to the Director or directing the petitioner to approach before the Director again he has passed an order which in considered opinion of this Court is not in accordance with law. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the 10 petitioner is directed to move an appropriate application / representation before the respondent No. 2 i.e. The Director, Employment and Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block No.4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh raising her grievances and, in turn, the respondent No. 2, Employment and Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Chhattisgarh is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner regarding her appointment in accordance with law in a pragmatic manner, keeping in mind the earlier orders passed by this Court. 9. The petitioner is directed to file her representation within a period of 10 days and, in turn, the authorities are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks. 10. C.C. today. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat