Faleshwar Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010145622025

2026:CGHC:40526

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2727 of 2025

¶7

Faleshwar Kumar Jain S/o Ghasiya Ram Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 22, Sanskritik Bhawan, Govindpur, Post- Govindpur Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Skill Development, Training And Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Joint Director- Training Regional Office, Bastar Zone, Office Of Joint Director, Jagadalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - President Document Verification Committee, Bastar Zone, Office Of Joint Director, Jagadalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal(Cgvyapam) Through Its Controller Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	:Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 3/State	:Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General
For Respondent No.5	:Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate.

¶15

2

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

(16^th September, 2026)

¶19

This petition be delinked from the other connected writ petitions.

¶20

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent authorities whereby they kept the petitioner on hold for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) and thereafter, rejected his representation by the impugned order dated 21.4.2025 (Annexure P/20 and R/2).

¶21

Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.2/Director, Employment and Training, Raipur issued an advertisement dated 5.5.2023, which was published in the daily newspaper on 6.5.2023, and subsequently amended on 13.5.2023, for filling up various posts of Training Officers in Govt. Industrial Training Institutes. The petitioner, an OBC physically handicapped candidate, who possessed Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Branch, submitted his application for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing). Though he successfully participated in the written examination and during counselling he was provisionally allotted posting in Govt. ITI, Kanker, but after documents verification, his candidature was kept on hold for verification of his experience

¶22

3

¶23

certificate as he was not paid salary for four months through bank account. Thereafter, he made a representation on 27/28.3.2025 to respondent No.2 thereby apprising that the issue in respect of mode of payment has already been considered by this Court and such candidates have been declared eligible. However, by the impugned communication dated 21.4.2025 (Annexure P/20), the aforesaid representation has been rejected on the ground that after documents verification being conducted on 21.8.2023, no representation was filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance. Hence this petition for the following relief:

¶24

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Training Officer Workshop Calculation and Engineering Drawing under PH Category candidate.

¶25

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take a decision on the representation dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P/13) filed before Respondent No.2 in the light of WP(S) No. 8069/2023 and other connected matter decided by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P/19).

¶26

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the communication order dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P/20) whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner possesses Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical

¶28

4

¶29

Branch. He submitted an application for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) against OBC, PH category but even after successful participation in the written examination, he was kept ‘on hold’ list of candidates (Annexure P/11) dated 21.8.2023 on the ground that his experience certificate has not been verified. He submits that the Principal-cum-Director, Central Institute of Technology, Naya Raipur, had addressed a communication to respondent No.3/Joint Director (Annexure P/12) explaining the manner in which the petitioner, who had been working in the said Institute as Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Department, was paid his salary through UBI Bank from August, 2015 to March, 2016 and thereafter, owing to certain technical reasons, payment was made to him in cash from April, 2016 to October, 2016. The petitioner filed representations dated 27/28.3.2025 (Annexure P/13) and dated 1.4.2025 (Annexure P/14) but his representations have been rejected vide impugned communication dated 21.4.2025 (Annexure P/20 & R/2) on the ground that neither he filed any petition before the High Court nor any order has been passed by the High Court in his favour and also he did not file any representation in time whereas the petitioner filed repeated representations right from 28.3.2025 and on 1.4.2025, despite that his candidature has not been considered. Hence he prays that this petition may be allowed and the relief sought for by the petitioner be granted to him.

¶30

5

¶31

The State/respondents has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that the petitioner never approached the Documents Verification Committee or any other authority by making any representation in time, rather he filed representation after conclusion of the recruitment proceedings, which were completed on 7.4.2025. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned communication warranting interference by this Court and the present petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, who is a formal party in this case, has supported the contention raised by learned State counsel.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

Undisputedly, the petitioner successfully participated in the recruitment process for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) under the OBC, PH category. In the list dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P/11) containing the names of eligible, ineligible and “hold” candidates, the petitioner’s candidature was not rejected; rather, it was specifically kept on hold for verification of his experience certificate. Thus, the issue requiring consideration by the respondent authorities was confined to verification of the petitioner’s experience certificate.

¶35

6

¶36

The petitioner thereafter submitted representations requesting consideration of his candidature. It is also borne out from the record that the Principal-cum-Director, Central Institute of Technology, Naya Raipur, had addressed a communication to respondent No.3/Joint Director (Annexure P/12) explaining the manner in which the petitioner, who had been working in the said Institute as Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Department, was paid his salary. The said communication specifically disclosed that the petitioner was paid salary through UBI Bank from August, 2015 to March, 2016 and thereafter, owing to certain technical reasons, payment was made to him in cash from April, 2016 to October, 2016.

¶37

Once the petitioner’s candidature had been kept on hold specifically for verification of his experience certificate, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to undertake such verification and thereafter take a final and reasoned decision regarding his eligibility. Having kept the candidature pending for verification, the respondents could not indefinitely leave the petitioner in a state of uncertainty and subsequently reject his representation on the ground that he had not approached the authorities within the stipulated time, particularly when the record itself demonstrates that the petitioner had been pursuing the matter and had submitted representations seeking consideration of his candidature.

¶38

7

¶39

The further contention of the respondents that the recruitment process had already concluded on 07.04.2025 also does not furnish a valid justification for rejection of the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner’s candidature had remained under consideration since 21.08.2023, not because he had been found ineligible, but because his experience certificate was required to be verified. The respondents, therefore, cannot take advantage of their own failure to complete the verification process and thereafter deny consideration to the petitioner on the ground that the recruitment process had subsequently been concluded.

¶40

More importantly, the impugned communication does not disclose that the petitioner’s experience certificate was found to be false, invalid or insufficient upon verification. His candidature has essentially been declined on the ground that he did not submit a representation within time and that no order had earlier been passed by this Court in his favour. Such reasoning cannot, by itself, constitute a lawful determination of the petitioner’s eligibility, particularly when his candidature had originally been kept on hold for a specific purpose, namely, verification of his experience certificate.

¶41

The approach adopted by the respondent authorities, therefore, cannot be sustained. The recruitment process is required to be conducted fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed eligibility criteria. A candidate whose candidature has been kept on hold for verification cannot be deprived of consideration merely

¶42

8

¶43

because the authorities failed to complete the verification within a reasonable time. The respondents were required to examine the petitioner’s documents on their own merits and arrive at a reasoned conclusion in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the conditions of the advertisement.

¶44

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned communication dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P/20 and R/2) cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P/20 and R/2) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) under the OBC, PH category, after duly verifying his experience certificate and considering all the documents produced by him, strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the eligibility criteria contained in the advertisement.

¶45

If, upon such reconsideration, the petitioner is found eligible and otherwise entitled to appointment on the basis of his position in the selection process and availability of the post, the respondents shall take consequential action in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order.

¶46

9

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶49

Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Digitally MOHD signed byMOHDAKHTAR Judge AKHTAR KHAN KHAN Date:2026.09.21 17:51:49 +0530

¶50

Khan

Faleshwar Kumar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faleshwar Kumar Jain 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases