Dismissed

Pitamber v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Nov 2015WPS/2206/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the cancellation of appointment due to a fake certificate submitted for teaching experience marks. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the findings of lower authorities that the petitioner did not have qualifying experience.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of appointment marks is dismissed.

Pitamber Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

W.P.(S)No.2206/2011

Page 1 of 5

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Writ Petition (S) No.2206 of 2011

¶6

Pitamber, S/o Shri Paretan Sahu, aged about 32 years, R/o Mahuabhata, Post Mohgaon, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.).

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.).

¶10

The Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.).

¶11

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.).

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondents No.1 & 2/State:

¶15

Mr. Suvigya Awasthi, Panel Lawyer.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

03/11/2015

¶19

The petitioner applied to the post of Shiksha Karmi GradeIII, Janpad Panchayat, Nawagarh. Selection and appointment of Shiksha Karmi is governed by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1997 (for short 'the Rules, 1997'). The petitioner in support of his experience, for

¶20

W.P.(S)No.2206/2011

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

which 12 marks were prescribed under Rule 5 (9) (1) (b) of the Rules, 1997, submitted a certificate issued by the Block Education Officer, Saja countersigned by the Head Master of Primary School, Mahuabhata. On the basis of the certificate, the petitioner was given 12 marks for teaching experience in the Janbhagidari school. On a complaint made that the petitioner did not have the experience in teaching in Janbhagidari school, an enquiry was made by the Collector, Durg and an order was passed on 2-12-2008 in which such certificate was found to be fake, as no such certificate was issued from the Office of the District Education Officer, Saja. It has further been held that the petitioner did not have the experience of teaching in Janbhagidari school, therefore, he is not entitled to get 12 marks and as such, his appointment on the said post was cancelled as 12 marks were deducted from the marks awarded to him, as he was not qualified.

¶23

The petitioner preferred appeal / revision before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur and the Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Collector, Durg, holding that the petitioner did not have the experience of teaching in Janbhagidari school and therefore, the Collector has rightly passed the order cancelling appointment of the petitioner against which this

¶24

W.P.(S)No.2206/2011

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶27

Mr. P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has teaching experience in the Government schools which is equivalent to teaching experience in Shiksha Guarantee Scheme Center, Janbhagidari Schools, D.P.E.P. Alternative Schools, Nonformal Education Center, cent-percent aided State Government and in Village Schools recognized by the Janpad Panchayat & Zila Panchayat and, therefore, the petitioner was rightly awarded marks by the Janpad Panchayat which has erroneously been set aside by the Collector by his order dated 2-12-2008 and the Commissioner has committed illegality in affirming the same.

¶28

On the other hand, Mr. Suvigya Awasthi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1 & 2, would support the impugned order.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the order passed by the Collector and copies of other documents and also perused the relevant provisions of law with utmost circumspection.

¶30

It is evident from the order of the Collector that the certificate of experience which the petitioner submitted at

¶31

W.P.(S)No.2206/2011

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

the time of his appointment was found fake by the Collector on his enquiry. It is not in dispute that the school in which the petitioner had worked for three years is not the Janbhagidari school, it is a Government Primary School, Mahuabhata. The qualification prescribed under Rule 5 (9) (1) (b) of the Rules, 1997, is that 12 marks can be awarded for teaching experience in Shiksha Guarantee Scheme Center, Janbhagidari Schools, D.P.E.P. Alternative Schools, Non-formal Education Center, cent-percent aided State Government and in Village Schools recognized by the Janpad Panchayat & Zila Panchayat. Thus, the petitioner is not having teaching experience in any of the aforesaid schools and even the petitioner had produced a fake certificate claiming to have teaching experience in Janbhagidari school which has been set aside by the Collector.

¶34

A candidate in order to apply for the post of appointment as Shiksha Karmi must have educational qualification as per the rules. Marks for teaching experience can be given in accordance with the rules prescribed in that behalf.

¶35

Admittedly, the petitioner did not have the teaching experience in Janbhagidari school and he submitted fake certificate that he has teaching experience in Janbhagidari

¶36

W.P.(S)No.2206/2011

¶37

Page 5 of 5 school which has been found to be false on enquiry by the Collector and resultantly, his appointment has been cancelled and that has been affirmed by the Commissioner in revision / appeal.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid finding, the finding of the Collector as affirmed by the Commissioner is based on record, it is not perverse as the petitioner did not have the necessary teaching experience in Janbhagidari school and on the contrary, he produced fake certificate which has been found by the Collector on enquiry, as such, there is no jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings recorded by the Collector and affirmed by the Commissioner to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

10.Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶40

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶41

Soma

Pitamber v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitamber v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidit Chandra Tandi, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Chand Dahariya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chetan Narang Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr. N.S. Patel Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Chait Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.Lakhan Bai Vs Rambai. and Ors.