Dismissed

Vivek Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Oct 2023WA/245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench dismissed writ appeals against an order upholding rejection of candidates for Assistant Professor post. The High Court held it lacks jurisdiction to declare degrees equivalent, reserving that power for the State Government under Standing Orders.

What did the court decide?

High Court directed State Government to constitute an Expert Committee to ascertain if Master's degrees in Bio Technology and Medical Biotechnology can be construed as equivalent.

Vivek Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.245 of 2021

¶4

Vivek Kumar Soni S/o Shri Shantilal Soni Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Ward No. 25, House No. 117, Shankar Nagar Champa , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Controller Of Examination Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Roll No. 190220100060

¶11

Satyam Kumbhakar Roll No. 190220100078

¶12

Ravindra Rathore Roll No. 190220100022

¶13

Ritambhara Chauhan Roll No. 190220100018

¶14

Seema Mandavi Roll No. 190220100051

¶15

Neelima Bhoi Roll No. 190220100301

¶16

Shweta Nistala Roll No. 190220100236

¶17

Priya Rani Dhiwar Roll No. 190220100037

¶18

Himanshu Vankhede Roll No. 190220100037

¶19

Namita Kujur Roll No. 190220100334

¶20

Respondent Nos. 4 to 13 through Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

And

WA No. 285 of 2021

¶25

Ms. Aditi Singh D/o L.B.P.S. Thakur Aged About 33 Years, Old R/o Qr.No. 8/B, Street-2, Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh Pin 490001

¶26

Versus

¶27

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur 492002

¶28

The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶29

The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶30

The Director, Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶31

---- Respondents

¶32

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶33

For Appellants : Mr.Rohit Sharma, Advocate in WA No.245/2021 For Appellant : Mr.Swajeet Singh Ubeja, Advocate in WA No.285/2021 For Respondent-State : Mr.Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent-PSC : Mr.Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr.A.K.Samantray, Advocate in WA No.245/2021 For Respondent No.10: Mr.Amit Tirkey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr.Pankaj Agrawal in WA No.245/2021

¶34

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶35

Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge

¶36

Judgment on Board

¶37

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶38

12.10.2023

¶39

1. Heard Mr.Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No.245/2021, Mr.Swajeet Singh Ubeja, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No.285/2021, Mr.Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, Mr. Mr.Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent-PSC, Mr.A.K.Samantray, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in WA No.245/2021 and Mr.Mr.Amit

¶40

¶41

Tirkey, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr.Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.10 in WA No.245/2021.

¶42

2 . Since the aforesaid two writ appeals are arising out of the common order dated 8.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS Nos.1204/2021 and 1270/2021, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶43

3 . The appellants have filed these two writ appeals against the order dated 8.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS Nos.1204/2021 and 1270/2021, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners/appellants herein.

¶44

3 . Brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ appeals that respondent No.2 vide advertisement dated 18.01.2019 published on 23.01.2019 called for the applications against the recruitment of Assistant Professor (Higher Education Department). It is submitted that on 23.02.2019 a corrigendum to the above advertisement was published. The said notification contained a list of subjects and allied subjects and the clarification clause 5 stated that candidates who hold a NET/CGSAT/PHD in any of the allied subjects are eligible to apply for post of Assistant Professor in the same. On 11.02.2020 respondent No.2 issued another notification specifying the structure of the examination which included the total duration of the examination, the number of questions and the total marks for which the exam was being conducted. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 on 22.01.2021 issued the selection list of the shortlisted candidates for the interview stage. The appellants on 9.2.2021 appeared before the committee with all the requisite documents and they declared fit for the interview round that was

¶45

¶46

to be conducted on 10.02.2021. On 10.02.2021 when the appellants reached the office of the respondent Commission, they were informed that they are not qualified to appear for the interview as their Master’s degree are in Medical Biotechnology which is not meeting the requirements for the post of Assistant Professor (Biotechnology). The appellants on the very same day moved a representation requesting them to reconsider their decision and there is no formal order to the effect that disqualify the appellants from appearing in the interview. Thereafter, the appellants filed the writ petitions, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, these writ appeals.

¶47

4 . Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the impugned order dated 8.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from perversity, hence, it is liable to be set aside. Learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the subject Medical Bio Technology is synonym with Bio Technology and therefore, the appellants shall have been granted the remedy sought for. They further submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the findings recorded in para 13 of the impugned order must have been undertaken and based on which the final decision must have been arrived it. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the act of the respondent is struck by doctrine of promissory estoppel and therefore, allowing Medial Bio Technology in 2012 and taking a somersault step in 2021 is impermissible in the eyes of law. They also submit that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the appellants are entitled to be considered for appointment and must have been permitted to appear in the interview and denying of said opportunity on the day of interview is

¶48

¶49

nothing but a arbitrary and malafide exercise on the part of the respondents and as such, must have been thwarted by the learned Single Judge which in a instant case has not been done. The learned Single further failed to appreciate the fact that two subjects Medical bio Technology and Bio Technology are belonging to the same discipline. They contended that a perusal of the corrigendum dated 23.02.2019 goes to show that the qualification required to apply for the post of Assistant Professor is NET/CGSAT/PHD and the same nowhere mentions anything about the Master’s Degree, the respondent Commission has gone beyond the scope of the advertisement and put in their own interpretation which is impermissible in law. As such, the writ appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside by allowing the relief/prayer mentioned in the writ petitions.

¶50

5 . On the other hand, Mr.Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State and Mr.Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent-PSC support the impugned order and submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners, in which no interference is called for.

¶51

6 . From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has held that the question of equivalence is not within the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The power rests exclusively with the State Government. In the instant case, the Rules referred to only to relevant subject and there being a specific Post Graduation course for the relevant subject of Bio

¶52

¶53

Technology, any other Post Graduation degree ancillary to Bio Technology subject or any other allied subjects, the Courts, or, for that matter, the Respondents cannot accepted to be a valid Degree unless the Rules are amended as such. In the absence of amendment in the Rules and Advertisement, the Petitioners do not have a case and both the Writ Petitions thus deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. The learned Single Judge further in his wisdom observed that in order to avoid future complications arising out of similar qualification of Bio Technology and Medical Bio Technology, this Court would like to direct the State Government to take necessary steps to ensure obtaining appropriate finding from the concerned body or by way of constituting an Expert Committee to ascertain whether the Master's Degree in Bio Technology and Master's Degree in Medical Bio Technology can be construed as equivalence course or not.

¶54

7 . Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and also considering the material available on record and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners warranting interference by this Court.

¶55

8 . Accordingly, the writ appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶56

Sd/- Sd/-

¶57

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

Vivek Kumar Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Soni 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

South Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Vs Gulshan Prakash

M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Avinash Saloman

Vishwanath Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Prakash Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kiran Devi Agrawal, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S E. Tech Projects Private Limited. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh