Dismissed

Sahiba Shabanam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 May 2018WPS/6410/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her ineligibility for Assistant Grade-III post due to failure in skill test and alleged lack of exemption for disabled candidates. Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's six-month diploma failed to meet the mandatory one-year qualification under the advertisement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner declared ineligible for the post.

Sahiba Shabanam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6410 of 2017

¶4

Sahiba Shabanam D/o A. L. Khan, Aged About 42 Years R/o Itwari Bazar, Marathapara, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶8

Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through Its Secretary, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner	: Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate along
	with Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Aushutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.2	: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande,Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶12

17/05/2018

¶13

1 . The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that of the respondents declaring the petitioner ineligible/not found fit, for participating in the further selection process for the post of Assistant Grade-III in the advertisement that was issued on 04.02.2016.

¶14

2 . The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been found ineligible on account of she not being able to clear the skill test that was required and the skill test was that of typing.

¶15

3 . According to the counsel for the petitioner, there are instructions of the State Government, wherein it has been held that the candidates belonging to the physical handicapped category would be exempted from participating in the skill text, because of the disability that they suffered. It was further the contention of the petitioner that there were even the office memorandum issued by the Government of India

¶16

¶17

also, wherein similar exemptions have been granted to the physically handicapped persons, therefore the insistence for passing of the skill test by the petitioner is totally uncalled for. Therefore an appropriate direction has to be passed to the respondents permitting the petitioner to participate in the further recruitment process.

¶18

4 . The State counsel on the other side opposing the petition submits that the petitioner in the instant case, even if she would have cleared the skill test, does not otherwise fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria as is required under the advertisement, therefore non-consideration of the petitioner is justified and there is no scope of interference left for this Court to consider.

¶19

5 . A perusal of the record admittedly shows that an advertisement was issued on 04.02.2016. The advertisement was for filling up for the post of Assistant Grade-III. The minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement is shown under clause (3) of the same, which is reproduced herein as under:-

¶20

“ 3- lgk;d xzsM&3%&

¶21

¼1½ ekU;rk izkIr f'k{kk eaMy ls (10+2) ijh{kk mRrh.kZ]

¶22

vFkok

¶23

iqjkuh gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ds lkFk ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls fdlh Hkh fo"k; ds Lukrd ikB~;Øe dh izFke o"kZ ijh{kk mRrh.kZA

¶24

¼2½ ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk ls MkVk ,UVªh vkijsVj@izksxzkfeax esa ,d o"khZ; [email protected]&i= rFkk]

¶25

¼3½ dEI;wVj esa fgUnh Vk;fiax dk 5]000 dh (key) fMizs'ku izfr?kaVk dh xfr ¼xfr ds laca/k esa dkS'ky ijh{kk yh tk,xh½A

¶26

uksV%&

¶27

¼1½ mijksDr Øekad 1 ls 2 dk [email protected]&i= foKkiu tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls /kkfjr gksA

¶28

¼2½ mijksDr Øekad 3 dh n{krk dh tkap] izk;ksfxd n{krk dh dkS'ky ijh{kk gsrq vkeaf=r vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh n{krk@dkS'ky ijh{kk ds le; gh dh tk;sxhA ”

¶29

¶30

6 . Perusal of sub-clause (2) of this rule would show that the requirement was of passing the Data Entry Operator/Programming Course from a recognized institution and the diploma course should be of one year.

¶31

7 . Coming to the documents enclosed with the writ petition it would reveal that the petitioner has undertaken a diploma course from the ‘ Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal' and the diploma in the Computer application course was for the period between June, 1997 to 1^st December, 1997, as is reflected from Annexure P/10, which has been brought on record by a separate application by the petitioner. Likewise, the certificate issued by the said university also reveals that it is the same course, which the petitioner has undertaken. If that be so, it apparently shows that the petitioner did not have the one year’s diploma course that was mandatorily required under clause (3) of the advertisement for being called for the further recruitment process.

¶32

8 . So far as the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is exempted from participating in the skill test is concerned, for the moment even if we ignore that, even then, since the petitioner does not have the minimum eligibility/educational criteria as is required for the post of Assistant Grade-III as per the advertisement, the petitioner would not be eligible for being considered for the said post.

¶33

9 . Given the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the certificate of the petitioner, which reveals that it is not a one year’s diploma course, rather it is a six months’ diploma course, the petitioner does not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria under the

¶34

¶35

advertisement, therefore, the petitioner would not have any claim for the said post.

¶36

10. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is

¶37

accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶40

Ved

Sahiba Shabanam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahiba Shabanam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dr. Surapaneni Somsekhara Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Vishal Trehan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Dr. Kalpana Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lal Mohar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Badri Prasad Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.