Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Anjanee Saraf vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 425 of 2022
Smt. Anjanee Saraf W/o Shri Satish Saraf Aged About 43 Years R/o New
Sarkanda, Jabdapara, Bilaspur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Services Commission Through Its Secretary,
H.Q. Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
10.08.2022
Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for
respondent No.1 and Mr. B.D.Guru, learned counsel, appearing for
respondent No.2.
2. I.A. No. 1 of 2022 is an application for condonation of delay of 31
days in filing the connected appeal.
3. Application is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On due consideration, delay is condoned. I.A. No. 1 of 2022 is
disposed of.
4. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 20.04.2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1830 of 2015, whereby the writ
petition was dismissed. By the said order, another writ petition, being WPS
No. 2271 of 2015, was also dismissed.
5. The respondent No.2 had issued an advertisement dated 29.05.2013
for filing up of the post of Granthpal (Librarian). The advertisement under
Note (ii) of Clause (3) relating to requisite educational qualification
stipulated that the candidates must have passed National Eligibility Test
(NET) or any other examination like State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) /
State Eligibility Test (SET) in Library Science from the University Grants
Commission or any other agency recognized by the University Grants
Commission for this purpose. The advertisement was issued for 61 posts.
6. The appellant had taken part in the written examination on
07.12.2014 and had cleared the same and accordingly, she was called for
interview on 07.05.2015 . However, the appellant was not allowed to take
part in the interview process on the ground that she is not having certificate
of NET/SLET/SET pass in Library Science.
7. The appellant had filed the writ petition on 08.05.2015 praying for a
direction to appear in the interview and to select the petitioner on the post
of Granthpal (Librarian).
8. There is no dispute that the appellant does not have the requisite
educational qualification of NET/SLET/SET mentioned in Note (ii) of Clause
(3) of the advertisement.
9. Mr. Choubey submits that no examination for NET / SLET / SET was
conducted before issuance of the advertisement and the appellant having
been allowed to take part in the written examination, preventing her from
appearing in the interview, was wholly not justified.
10. Relying on the return filed before the learned Single Judge, Mr. Guru
submits that the applications were called for online from the eligible
candidates and Clause (5) of the advertisement specifically laid down that
the candidate should satisfy himself/herself about fulfillment of requisite
educational qualification, age etc. and then only to submit application form
and it is on the basis thereof, the appellant was allowed to take part in the
written examination and at the time of interview, on the failure of the
appellant to produce NET/SLET/SET certificate, she was not allowed to
take part in the interview process and there is no illegality in the same.
9. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that entire
recruitment process had come to an end long back and having regard to
the prescription under Schedule-III of the Chhattisgarh Educational Service
(Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, had dismissed the writ
petition.
10. We see no good ground to take a view different than the one taken by
the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
