Lalima Jaiswal vs Jyoti Mishra
2022 Latest Caselaw 3458 Chatt

                                     1




                                                            NAFR/ AFR


         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR

                   Writ Appeal No.254 of 2020

     Lalima Jaiswal W/o Shri Bhagirathi Jaisawal Aged About 39
     Years R/o 143/5/A, Balco Nagar, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
     (Intervener in Writ Petition)
     But in Judgment wrongly mentioned as Respondent No.3 in

Writ Petition.

---- Appellant Versus

1. Jyoti Mishra W/o Shri Aseem Mishra Aged About 42 Years R/o Quarter No. T-45/5M, ITI Campus Koni, Post Koni, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioner in Writ Petition)

2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Technical Education Man Power Planning and Science & Technology Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Post Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition)

3. The Director, Employment & Training, Women Polytechnic Premises, Bairon Bazar, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition)

4. Ku. D. Saraswati D/o Shri D. Ramanna Rao, through the Director, Employment & Training, Women Polytechnic Premises, Bairon Bazar, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition)

---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate.

For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.

Date of Hearing                :       02.05.2022

Date of Order                  :       11.05.2022

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge

C A V Order

Per R.C.S. Samant, Judge

1. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated

3.2.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)

No.4899 of 2012, by which the writ petition was allowed in

favour of the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 in writ

appeal had published an advertisement, in a daily newspaper

on 2.9.2010, inviting applications for selection & appointment,

in total 723 posts, of Training Officers Class-III of various

branches in various Government Industrial Training Institutes.

The petitioner/ respondent No.1 had the qualification of

diploma in electronics. The post for Instrument Mechanics

required minimum educational qualification of Higher

Secondary Certificate with Maths, Physics and Chemistry

under 10+2 education system or old 11 th class education

system and degree or diploma in Instrumental Engineering

from recognized University or Board or pass examination in

All India Craftsman Certificate Exam in concerned trade or

N.A.C. (National Apprenticeship Certificate). The petitioner/

respondent No.1 being a diploma holder in Electronics

Engineering and Telecommunication applied for the post for

which she was eligible and as she was not eligible to apply for

the post of Instrument Mechanics, she did not fill up the

application for this post. Later on, a Committee was

constituted for scrutiny of application forms. The Committee

so constituted prescribed the qualifications of B.E./ Diploma in

Electronics & Instrumentation Engineering, B.E./ Diploma in

Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering, B.E./ Diploma

in Electronics, B.E./ Diploma Instrumentation & Process

Control Engineering, as equivalent for verification. The State

Government thereafter by order dated 7.10.2011 constituted

another Committee to scrutinize the applications filed by the

applicants for different posts. It had been the case of the

petitioner/ respondent No.1 that the decision on the

equivalence of the qualification has been taken by the

respective committee, at later stage, after the publication of

the advertisement and submission of the application forms by

the respective candidates. Learned Single Judge has allowed

the petition by the order impugned.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the petitioner

did not have the diploma or degree for the post of Instrument

Mechanics on the date of advertisement. The petitioner/

respondent No.1 had filed application forms for four different

posts on the basis of her qualification but she could not be

selected for any of the post and therefore, she was

unsuccessful. At this stage, the petitioner/ respondent No.1

submitted another application form for the post of Training

Officer (Instrument Mechanics), after the cut off date, on the

ground that according to the decision on equivalence, her

diploma in Electronic Engineering (Electronics

Communication) is equivalent to the qualification required for

the post of Instrument Mechanics. The appellant is simply

diploma holder in Instrument Mechanics and therefore, she

has no chance to compete with the degree holders, therefore,

by allowing the writ petitioner in the selection process for the

post of Instrument Mechanics, the appellant is likely to suffer

the loss. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not made

the other selected candidates as party in the writ petition,

therefore, the petition had the defect of non-joinder of the

necessary parties. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned

order of the Single Judge is not sustainable.

4. Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General for

respondents No.2 & 3, submits that the learned Single Judge

has passed the impugned order correctly. That the decision

on equivalence has been taken by the specific Committee at

a later stage is, however, not disputed.

5. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the

documents present on record.

6. Learned Single Judge has held in paragraphs No.13, 14, 15 &

16, which is as follows:

'13. Given the aforesaid undisputed factual matrix of the case, all that now has to be seen is that whether on the date of advertisement the State authorities or any of the respondents had any such order or circular by which the equivalent to the course of degree/diploma in Instrumentation Engineering was available or not. The document Annexure P/4 as well as Annexure P/5 would compels this court to draw an inference that this decision for deciding the equivalent subject had been undertaken by the respondents much after the advertisement and the last date for filling up of the form was over. There is no rebuttal whatsoever to the specific plea made in this regard by the State Govt. in their reply or in their application for vacating interim relief granted by this court as early as on 01.11.2012.

14. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment in case of Prakash Chand Meena (Supra) wherein dealing with similar situation, the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 has made the following observations:

"9..............In the matter of eligibility qualification, the equivalent qualification must be recognized as such in the recruitment rules or government order existing on or

before the initiation of recruitment process. In the present case, this process was initiated through advertisement inviting application which did not indicate that equivalent or higher qualification holders were eligible to apply nor were the equivalent qualifications reflected in the recruitment rules or government orders of the relevant time."

15. Given the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and also considering the undisputed facts of the present case, this court is also is of the view that the decision of deciding the equivalence to the course of degree/diploma in Instrumentation Engineering by the respondents subsequent to the recruitment process having been initiated is bad in law. The same should had been undertaken before the recruitment process itself had taken or at least it should had been finalized before the date of advertisement i.e. on 02.09.2010.

16. Under the said circumstances, since this court had by interim order stayed the entire recruitment to the said post, hence the entire recruitment process initiated for the post of Instrument Mechanic i.e. serial No.13 in Annexure P/2 (in the advertisement dated 02.09.2010), is bad in law, the same stands set aside/quashed including Annexure P/1 dated 03.10.2012, declaration of the selected candidates for interview in the subject of Instrument Mechanic, reserving the right of the respondents to go in for a fresh recruitment for the said post.'

7. A similar matter had come up before the Supreme Court in

the case of Sridip Chatterjee vs. Gopa Chakraborty and

Others, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 59, in which the decision

in the case of Prakash Chand Meena & Others vs. State of

Rajasthan & Others, reported in 2015 (8) SCC 484 was

followed and the principle laid down is clear that the eligibility

criteria cannot be changed in the midway by taking any

decision of equivalence of qualification, subsequent to

publication of advertisement and also after the submission of

application forms. Learned Single Judge has by allowing the

writ petition quashed the entire recruitment process initiated

for the post of Instrument Mechanics i.e. at Sr. No.13

advertisement dated 2.9.2010.

8. After careful consideration on the submissions, the facts

present in the case and the law applicable, we are of the

considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from

any infirmity or illegality. Therefore, we do not find any reason

to allow this writ appeal.

9. On the basis of this conclusion drawn, this writ appeal is

dismissed.

                  Sd/-                                 Sd/-

        (Arup Kumar Goswami)            (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
           Chief Justice                               Judge


Nimmi