High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
-1- Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2025:CGHC:30852 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPS No. 4906 of 2018
Legal Reasoning
Maheshwari Sahu D/o D/o Shri Khem Singh Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Singhauri, Post Gorakhpur Kala, Tehsil Sahaspur Lohara, Police Station Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgrh. 2 - Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Manju S/o D/o Tilakram Tilakwar Aged About 26 Years R/o H. No. 25, Bhaktinpara, Village Bhonda, Post Bodla, P. S. Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Jagriti Kaiwartya D/o D/o Bhagwatram Aged About 27 Years R/o C/o Assistant Commissioner, Land Record, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Sweta Mishra D/o D/o Sunil Mishra Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Near Chandi Mandir, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.07.2025 -2- 1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to quash the select list P/5 so far as non selection of the petitioner cancelled and publish a fresh list, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Patwari in the District of Kabirdham, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus to grant all the consequential benefits as a result of appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure P/1. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Patwari as per the advertisement (Annexure P/1). It is contended that though the petitioner was found eligible in the merit list, her name was omitted from the final selection list on the ground that she did not possess the required computer qualification, i.e., Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications (for short, PGDCA). It is further submitted that the petitioner was having a Diploma in Computer Applications (for short, DCA) from Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur, obtained in the year 2014, which is a one-year diploma from a recognized university. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in the matter of Arun Kumar Dhruv v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WA No. 201/2018, wherein the Court held that a one-year DCA is -3- sufficient for meeting the eligibility criteria regarding computer knowledge, and rejection on the ground of non-possession of PGDCA is arbitrary and irrational. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was not selected as she did not possess the required computer qualification; thus, there is no mistake on the part of the respondent authorities; thus, they would pray that the the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5) In the matter of Arun Kumar Dhruv (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench while dealing with similar issue in para-6, 7 & 8 held as under :- “6. In our opinion, the list have to be read in a holistic manner and the insistence of the Respondents to demand or hold that these eligible candidates cannot be selected on the ground that they do not have post graduation diploma, is misplaced. It is nobody's case that the University from which these Appellants have obtained one year diploma in computer application or programing is not recognized University. These are the Universities which have been setup in the State of Chhattisgarh under The Chhattisgarh Private Universities (Establishment and Operation) Act, 2005 and, therefore, to bring the case of these Appellants under Clause 5(3) of the notification of the General Administration Department dated 23.01.2015 would be doing violence to the language and the requirement. 7. In addition to that, counsel for the Appellants have brought on record a recent Notification dated 22.01.2018 which is Annexure-D/1. It is part of I.A. No.2 of 2018, wherein the General Administration Department, in relation to appointment on diverse posts have clarified that a one year diploma in computer application is equally valid for the purposes where computer -4- knowledge is mandated for recruitment. This circular of the General Administration Department sheds light and is directed against one and all Departments which are involved in recruitment process. 8. In totality, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the reason for rejection of the claim of these Appellants for appointment on the ground that they did not possess PGDCA is not only irrational, but is also arbitrary and is in violence of the requirements laid down by the Respondents own advertisement, by misreading of the requirements.” 6) In the present case, the petitioner was excluded solely on the ground that she did not possess a PGDCA, despite having a valid one-year DCA from a recognized university. In view of the decision rendered in the matter of Arun Kumar Dhruv (supra), and the clarification issued by the General Administration Department with regard to requirement of computer qualification, the said ground of rejection cannot be sustained.
Decision
7) Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 8) The respondent authorities are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Patwari, treating her one-year DCA as fulfilling the requisite qualification for computer knowledge as per the advertisement. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim