Lalima Jaiswal vs Jyoti Mishra
2022 Latest Caselaw 5588 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                    NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         REVP No. 124 of 2022
Lalima Jaiswal W/o Shri Bhagirathi Jaiswal Aged About 39 Years R/o
143/5/a, Balco Nagar, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.    Jyoti Mishra W/o Shri Aseem Mishra Aged About 42 Years R/o Qr.
      No. T-45/5m, Iti Campus, Koni, Police Station And Post - Koni,
      District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2.    The State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Technical
      Education, Man Power Planning And Science And Technology
      Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Post - Raipur, Police Station -
      Civil Line, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3.    The Director Employment And Training, Women Polytechnic
      Premises, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Police Station - Civil Line, Raipur,
      District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4.    Ku. D. Saraswati D/o Shri D. Ramana Rao Through - The Director,
      Employment And Training, Women Polytechnic Premises, Bairon
      Bazar, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur, District : Raipur,
      Chhattisgarh
                                                         ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

07.09.2022

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the

petitioner. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate,

appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3.

2. This review application is filed against the judgment dated

11.05.2022 passed in WA No. 254 of 2020.

3. The requisite qualification for the post of Training Officer

(Instruments Mechanic) was degree or diploma holder in Instrumentation

Engineering or equivalent to Instrumentation Engineering from any

recognized University / Board etc. The appellant herein had the requisite

qualifications as she is diploma holder in Instruments Mechanic. The writ

petitioner / respondent No.1, on the other hand, is diploma holder in

Electronics Engineering and Telecommunication.

4. What was the equivalent qualification was not indicated or laid

down before the last date fixed for submission of application pursuant to

the advertisement dated 02.09.2010. Later on, on 07.10.2011, equivalent

qualifications for the post of Training Officer (Instruments Mechanic) was

published and the writ petitioner was eligible in terms of the equivalence.

5. This Court, on due consideration of the order of the learned Single

Judge, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. No error apparent

on the face of the record is brought to our notice with regard to the view

taken by the Division Bench.

6. Resultantly, the review application is dismissed.

7. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents may

issue a fresh advertisement for recruitment to the post of Training Officer

(Instruments Mechanic).

                     Sd/-                                       Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                         (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                Chief Justice                                  Judge
Hem