Chattisgarh High Court
Shesh Narayn Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 December, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on 21.11.2022
Order Pronounced on 13.12.2022
REVP No. 194 of 2019
• Shesh Narayn Sahu S/o Shri Lakhanlal Sahu Aged About 30
Years R/o Village Sirsida, Post Khamaraiya, P.S. Sihawa, Tahsil
Nagri, Civil And Revenue District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital
Complex, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary,
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankarnagar, Bhagat
Singh Square, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. All India Council For Technical Education, Through Its Chairman,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, District : New
Delhi, Delhi
4. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai
Through Its Registrar, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical
University, Bhilai, North Park Avenue, Sector 8, Bhilai, District
Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
REVP No. 164 of 2019
1. Saurabh Singh S/o Shri Brishket Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Bhainsumudi, Post Office Siund, Janjgir Champa, District
Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
2. Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Radhye Shyam Sahu Aged About
27 Years R/o C/o Bhaiyalal Sahu, Near Maharashtra Mandal
Ramkund Choubey Colony Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Piyush Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Aged About 26 Years
R/o House No.197, Ward No.8, Brahmanpara, Pandatarai District
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankarnagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. All India Council For Technical Education Through Its Secretary,
Chandralok Building, Janpad, Delhi.
---- Respondents
REVP No. 217 of 2019
1. Geetesh Kumar S/o Shri Hemant Kumar Aged About 26 Years
R/o Village And Post - Nahanda, Tahsil - Dondilohara, Police
Station Devri, Bangla, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District :
Balod, Chhattisgarh
2. Saurabh Singh S/o Shri Brishket Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Bhainsumudi, Post Office Siund, Janjgir Champa, District
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
3. Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Radhye Shyam Sahu Aged About
27 Years R/o C/o Bhaiyalal Sahu, Near Maharashtra Mandal
Ramkund Choubey Colony Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankarnagar Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. All India Council For Technical Education Through Its Secretary,
Chandralok Building, Janpad, Delhi., Delhi
4. Dheeraj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Akshay Sahu Aged About 27 Years
R/o Near Azad Chowk Village And Post, Mandhar, Police Station
Dharsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
REVP No. 227 of 2019
1. Bharthari Singh S/o Shri Begai Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village And Post Khongapali Quarter No. 281 Ekta Nagar Police
Station Ledri Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh,
District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
2. Mukteshwari Sahu D/o Shri Saroj Kumar Aged About 25 Years
R/o Sanjay Nagar, Teachers, Colony, Kurud, Police Station
Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattistarh, District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
3
3. Aarti Verma D/o Shri Thanwar Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o
Ekta Nagar, Bhilai 3, Behind C S E B Colony, Police Station
Bhilai 3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
Technical Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Chhattisgarh, Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road,
Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. All India Council For Technical Education Through Its Chairman,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, District : New
Delhi, Delhi
4. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai,
Through Its Registrar, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical
University Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
5. Vikas Kumar Gavel S/o Shri Vijay Prasad Gavel Aged About 26
Years R/o Quarter No. 28, Civil Lines, Dharamjaigarh, Police
Station And Post Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
6. Digvijay Singh Gabel S/o Gajanand Kumar Gabel Aged About 28
Years R/o House No. 145 Ward No. 8 Bazar Chowk, Village And
Post Mukta, Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
7. Nisha Deshmukh D/o Pritam Kumar Deshmukh Aged About 26
Years R/o Street No. 29, Block No. 131, Sector 7, Bhilai, Police
Station Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
8. Padmini Hardel S/o Balmiki Hardel Aged About 26 Years C/o
Shashikant Hardel, Shree Medical Stores, Raipur, Road,
Bathena Chowk, Dhamtari, Police Station Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
9. Roshni Sahu D/o Shri Yashwant Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o
Village And Post Lal Abrader Nagar, Police Station Chichola,
Thasil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
10. Sourabh Dewangan S/o Laxmi Dewangan Aged About 25 Years
R/o Sourabh Sadan, Jawahar Ward, Mungeli, Police Station
Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
11. Nishant Kumar Dewangan S/o Dilip Kumar Dewangan Aged
About 26 Years R/o 132 K V C S P T C L Sub Section C S E B
Colony, Bijli Nagar, Bhilai 3, Police Station Bhilai 3, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
4
12. Shyama S/o Shiv Prasad Aged About 25 Years C/o Salheona,
Tahsil Baramkela, Police Station Saria, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.,, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
13. Gitesh Kumar D/o Hemant Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o
Village Nahanda, Post Nahanda, Police Station Deori, Thasil
Dondi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.,, District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
14. Ghanshyam Vishwakerma S/o Vishnu Vishwakarma Aged About
30 Years R/o Old Sarkanda, Mata Choura, Bilaspur, Police
Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
REVP No. 235 of 2019
1. Juhi Verma S/o Shri Nepal Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o
Pursuram Nagar Telibandha Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh...(Appellants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Bhanupratap Bharti S/o Shri J.R. Bharti Aged About 28 Years R/o
House No 159, Sector 4 Balco Nagar , Korba District Korba
Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
Technical Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh...(Respondent), District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. All India Council For Technical Education Through Its
Secretary, Chandralok Building Janpad Delhi., District : New
Delhi, Delhi
---- Respondents
REVP No. 237 of 2019
• Gitesh Kumar S/o. Shri Hemant Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o.
Village And Post- Nahanda, Tahsil- Dondilohara P.S. Devri
Bangla, District- Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Shankarnagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5
3. All India Council For Technical Education Through, Its Secretary,
Chandralok Building, Janpad, Delhi
4. Lokesh Kumar Dewangan S/o. Shri Agnuram Dewangan Aged
About 28 Years R/o. Village- Kaudikasa Tahsil Chowki P.S.
Chowki, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
5. Rewati Raman Yadaw Roll No. 150303115450 C/o. Chhattisgarh
Public Service Commision, Through Its Secretary, Shankar
Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Sanjay Kumar Dewangan Roll No. 150303115271
C/o.Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
7. Sharad Chandra Rajpoot Roll No. 150303114982 C/o
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commision, Through Its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
REVP No. 238 of 2019
1. Durgesh Kumar Lilhare S/o Shri Rikhi Ram Lihare Aged About 26
Years R/o Village And Post Station Para, Ward No. 13,
Rajnandgaon, Police Station And Post Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh..............Appellant, District :
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2. Pooja Chandrakar D/o Shri Ram Kumar Aged About 25 Years
R/o Bhansuli Post- Jamnagar Tahsil Patan Police Station Durg
District Durg Chhattisgarh..............Appellant, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Shankarnagar Road
Bhagat Singh Square Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District
: Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. All India Council For Technical Education Through Its Chairman,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, District : New
Delhi, Delhi
4. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai
Through Its Registrar, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical
University Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
5. Rakesh Nirmalkar S/o Shri B.V. Nirmalkar Aged About 26 Years
R/o Near Ravi Das Square, Chandia Para, Police Station And
Post Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District :
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
6
6. Girja Shankar Verma S/o Banshi Lal Verma Aged About 26 Years
R/o Village Sell Via Katgi, Police Station And Post Balodabazar
District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-
Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
7. Mridul Kumar Jha S/o Mukul Kumar Jha Aged About 31 Years
R/o Street No. 2, New Adarsh Nagar Borsi Road Durg, Police
Station And Post Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
8. Anish Vishal S/o Madhusudan Vishal Aged About 26 Years R/o
U-5, Sector-1 (Ext.) Avant Vihar Telibandha, Police Station
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
9. Pooja Thawait, D/o Shri Bilas Kumar Thawait Aged About 25
Years R/o B.K. Medical Store, Near Chandan Talab, Pussure,
Post Pussore Police Station Raigarh, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
10. Virendra Kumar Nageshiya S/o Shri Man Prasad Nageshiya,
Aged About 25 Years R/o L.I.G. 202, H.B.Colony Police Station
And Post Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners :Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent 1/State :Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy G.A.
For Respondent 2 :Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari and
Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates
For Respondent 3/AICTE :Mr. Sandeep Dubey with Ms. Pragati
Kaushik, Advocates.
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
C.A.V. Order / Judgment
Per Sanjay Agrawal, J.
Heard on admission.
1. Since all the petitions involved a similar question, therefore, they
are being disposed of by this common order.
2. By way of these petitions, the Writ Petitioners are praying for
review of the judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Division Bench
of this Court in bunch of writ appeals seeking issuance of a direction to
Respondent / State authorities to follow the procedure for their
appointment to the post of Assistant Professors/Lecturers in Information
Technology, Department of Information Technology in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 15.07.2015.
3. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Writ Petitioners
had filed petitions seeking directions to the Respondent/State
authorities to consider their cases for appointment on the post of
Assistant Professors and Lecturers in different disciplines in
Government Engineering Colleges as well as Government Polytechnic
Colleges. According to the Writ Petitioners, an advertisement
No.03/2015, dated 09.07.2015, published on 15.07.2015, was issued by
the Public Service Commission (in short PSC) for recruitment of
Assistant Professors in Engineering Colleges and the Lecturers in
Polytechnic Colleges, for which, the prescribed qualification for the post
of Assistant Professors (Engineering Colleges) was B.E. / B.Tech. and
M.E / M.Tech. in relevant branch with first class or equivalent either in
B.E. / B.Tech. and, for the post of Lecturers (Polytechnic Colleges), the
essential qualification was Bachelors degree in Engineering /
Technology in the relevant branch with first class or equivalent with
further stipulation that if one candidate has the degree in Engineering /
Technology with the first class or equivalent is required either at
Bachelors' Level or at Masters' Level.
4. The Writ Petitioners were admittedly not possessed of the
qualifications in the same name / discipline, as mentioned in the said
advertisement, published on 15.07.2015. The Writ Petitioners, who had
duly applied for the said post were called for interview, but were
declared ineligible by the PSC as they did not possess the required
degrees as mentioned in the said advertisement. It was pleaded by the
Writ Petitioners, while referring to the notification dated 02.07.2017, that
the degree possessed by them have been declared relevant for the
subject for which the degree was made essential in the said notification,
therefore, they are duly eligible for the said posts.
5. On the other hand, it was the plea of the Respondent/State
authorities that the recruitment process has to be carried out strictly in
conformity with the said advertisement. It was pleaded further that one
Reshamlal Pradhan had filed the petition being WPS No.3169 of 2015
arising out of the same advertisement dealing with the same issue and
the same was dismissed by this Court, therefore, the petitions as
framed are liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the Rules known as
the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Engineering
College) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 and, similarly the
Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) Service
Recruitment Rules, 2014, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India, observed that the candidate applying for a particular post in a
particular discipline must have under-graduate or post-graduate in the
relevant subject and accordingly, while considering the expression
"relevant subject" held at paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 as under :-
"10. The expression "relevant subject" for
appointment on a post with reference to the qualification
has been considered by the Supreme Court in
Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput (supra),
holding that post-graduate degree in "relevant subject"
in the context would mean post-graduate degree in
which the candidate has applied for recruitment to teach
a particular subject. ............
11. In a subsequent decision rendered in Prakash
Chand Meena (supra), the Supreme Court has held
that in the matter of eligibility qualification, equivalent
qualification must be recognized as such in existing
recruitment rules or government order existing on or
before the initiation of recruitment process.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
13. I have given anxious and thoughtful
consideration to the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners on the above score, however,
the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash
Chand Meena (supra) is that the qualification must be
recognized as such in existing recruitment rules or
government order existing on or before initiation of
recruitment process and for a further reason that a
similar plea which has been raised by one of the
candidate who had appeared in the same recruitment
process namely; Reshamlal Pradhan has been rejected
by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 3169 of
2015 decided on 08.12.2015, against which, writ appeal
bearing WA No.37 of 2016 has been preferred, but
dismissed as withdrawn before the Division Bench of
this Court on 28.01.2016. Thus, even if the said
decision was rendered before issuance of the relevant
notification dated 02.02.2017, the observation made by
the Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Meena (supra)
would still bar the petitioners to raise a contrary
argument to validate their candidature on the basis of a
relevance notification which was not existing on the
date of initiation of recruitment process."
7. The aforesaid observation has been affirmed further by the
Division Bench vide its judgment impugned in bunch of writ appeals
sought to be reviewed herein by way of these petitions.
8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Writ
Petitioners, the PSC at the time of verification of documents, i.e., on
27.08.2016 debarred them from participating in the interview on the
ground that they are not holding the M.Tech. degree in Information
Technology, and therefore, they are not eligible. It is, however,
submitted herein that they (Petitioners) came to know in the year 2018
while furnishing the memo dated 07.11.2016 that a meeting of the
"Committee of Experts" was convened on 14.08.2015, who had never
rejected the degrees of the Writ Petitioners from eligibility criteria on the
ground of relevancy as mentioned in the said advertisement. It is
contended further by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
that, if the said opinion of the meeting would have been disclosed
before this Court, different conclusions would have arisen. Therefore,
the judgment impugned required to be recalled.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/State has
opposed the aforesaid contention of the Writ Petitioners.
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the entire record, particularly, the opinion of the expoert
Committee carefully.
11. At this juncture, it is necessary to examine the opinion of the said
Committee, contained in the said Memo dated 07.11.2016, wherein it
has been observed as under :-
"The members after due deliberations came to
conclusion that as per the advertisement dated
15/7/2015 UG and PG degree in Engineering /
Tehnological stream only as such M.SC. in basic Science
should not be considered equivalent to B.E./B.Tech
(Electronics) unless the M.SC. Degree of the applicant is
declared equivalent to B.Tech / B.E. (Electronics) by AIU.
Refer :- Clarifications issued by AICTE dated 10/9/2003.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
In the opinion of the Committee :-
(1) Post Graduate Degree (M.E./M.tech) with
specialization in information Technology are
relevant for the post of Assistant Professor in
Information Technology and/or Computer Sc &
Engg. Branch. This will be the same for the posts
of Lecturer in IT and /or CSE branches &
Polytechnics.
(2) No precedence could be found for taking M.C.A.
equivalent to B.E./B.Tech (CSE) as such M.C.A.
should not be taken as equivalent to UG
(Computer sc & Engg.). Also, BCA and B.SC
(computer science) should not be taken
equivalent to B.E.? Btech (CSE)
For both of the above recommendations
the reference is letter No. F. No. R10/ALL/2010-
11) 2010 DATED 21/6/2010.
These recommendation are made
pertaining to the application received which are
listed herewith."
12. Although the aforesaid opinion was given by the Committee, but
it was only recommendatory in nature and we do not find any document
placed on record that it has been approved and / or acted upon. In
absence of its approval, no reliance could be placed upon it, as prayed
for by the Writ Petitioners seeking review of the judgment impugned as
passed in the bunch of writ appeals. Consequently, we do not find any
ground so as to call for any interference in the judgment impugned.
13. The Review Petitions, being devoid of merit, are thus dismissed.
14. A copy of this order shall be placed in all the connected petitions.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Anjani
