Smriti Khara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

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

¶12

2 - General Administration Department Through-Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (C.G. Vyapam), Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4 - The Director, Directorate Of Employment And Traning Indravati Bhavan Block-04, First Floor Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Joint Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training Indravati Bhavan, Block-04, First Floor, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner(s) :	Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate
For Respondent(s) :	Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General along
	with Mr. Vivek Verma, GA
For Respondent No.3:	Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
	Avinash Singh, Advocate
(HON’BLE	SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

Order on Board

2

23/07/2026

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition calling in question the communication/order whereby her candidature for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Hospital Housekeeping) has been rejected solely on the ground that, while filling up OnLine application form, she entered the particulars of her Master's Degree in the column meant for the Bachelor's Degree and left the Master's Degree column blank, despite possessing the requisite educational qualifications for the said post.

¶23

(a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Hospital Housekeeping). As per the advertisement, the educational qualifications prescribed for the said post included High School or equivalent/11th Class (Old System) along with the prescribed technical qualification. The petitioner, who possesses a Master's Degree in Public Health, claims to fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria and accordingly submitted her OnLine application pursuant to the said advertisement. It is submitted that while filling up OnLine application form, the option relating to Public Health was available only in the Bachelor's Degree column and not in the Master's Degree column. Consequently, having no option available under the Master's Degree column, the petitioner entered the particulars of her Master's Degree in the Bachelor's Degree column and left the Master's Degree column blank.

¶24

(b) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was issued an admit card by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board

¶25

3

¶26

(CGVYAPAM) and appeared in the written examination held on 13.06.2023, wherein she secured 69.750 marks and obtained 3rd rank, thereby qualifying under the General Category. Thereafter, she was declared selected and was called for document verification on 23.02.2024. However, during the process of document verification, her selection was kept on hold on account of the aforesaid discrepancy in the OnLine application form. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter appeared before the Review Committee on 26.02.2024 and furnished a written explanation stating that the discrepancy had occurred only because the option of "Public Health" was not available in the Master's Degree column of OnLine application form.

¶27

(c) Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding the explanation submitted by the petitioner and despite there being no dispute regarding the educational qualification possessed by her, the respondents rejected her candidature solely on the technical ground that she had entered the particulars of her Master's Degree in the Bachelor's Degree column. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be denied appointment merely on account of a bona fide mistake committed while filling up OnLine application form, particularly when such mistake neither conferred any undue advantage upon her nor prejudiced the selection process in any manner. It is further submitted that the petitioner admittedly possesses the requisite qualification and that rejection of her candidature on a mere technical error is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. In support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the

¶28

4

¶29

Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, Civil Appeal No.10389 of 2024.

¶30

During the course of hearing, this Court, vide order dated 30.03.2026, directed the State and respondent No.3 to file affidavits specifically indicating (i) the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Hospital Housekeeping), and (ii) whether the Master's Degree column in the OnLine application form was available for selection on the date on which the petitioner submitted her application. Since the affidavit initially filed was found to be vague and did not specifically answer the queries raised by this Court, vide subsequent order dated 09.07.2026, further time was granted to the respondents to file a specific affidavit in the letter and spirit of the earlier order.

¶31

Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, respondent No.3 and the Chhattisgarh Staff Selection Board have filed their respective affidavits. In the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, it has been reiterated that the petitioner does not possess the prescribed Bachelor's Degree and that the minimum qualification prescribed under the advertisement is mandatory and cannot be substituted by a higher qualification. However, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Chhattisgarh Staff Selection Board, it has been specifically stated that, in OnLine application form, the option of "Public Health" was not available in the drop-down menu under the Master's Degree column and that the said option was available only under the Diploma and Bachelor's Degree columns. It has further been clarified that the examination agency merely collects the

¶32

5

¶33

information furnished by the candidates in the format prescribed by the recruiting department and forwards the same to the recruiting department, which alone is competent to determine the eligibility of the candidates.

¶34

Per contra , learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the minimum educational qualification prescribed under the recruitment advertisement dated 13.05.2023 for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Hospital Housekeeping) is mandatory in nature and cannot be substituted by possession of a higher qualification. It is contended that the petitioner admittedly does not possess the prescribed Bachelor's Degree in Public Health/Bio Science/Physiology/Nursing or its equivalent as required under the advertisement and, therefore, her candidature has rightly been rejected. It is further submitted that mere possession of a Master's Degree cannot be treated as equivalent to or as a substitute for the prescribed essential qualification unless such equivalence is specifically recognized under the recruitment rules. It is also contended that a candidate not possessing the prescribed eligibility cannot seek appointment by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that while submitting OnLine application form, the petitioner herself entered the particulars of her Master's Degree in the Bachelor's Degree column. According to the respondents, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of correcting the alleged error within the period

¶35

6

¶36

prescribed under the instructions issued by the CGVYAPAM. It is, therefore, submitted that after completion of the selection process, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek correction of the particulars furnished by her in OnLine application form and that the recruitment process has to be governed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement and the instructions governing submission of OnLine applications.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶38

The controversy involved in the present petition lies in a narrow compass. The candidature of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground that she had suppressed any material fact or that she had obtained any undue advantage in the selection process. Equally, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was otherwise ineligible to participate in the recruitment process. The sole ground for rejection of her candidature is that while submitting OnLine application form, she entered the particulars of her Master's Degree in the column meant for the Bachelor's Degree.

¶39

During the course of hearing, this Court deemed it appropriate to ascertain whether OnLine application portal actually provided the petitioner with an option to disclose her qualification under the Master's Degree column. Accordingly, vide orders dated 30.03.2026 and 09.07.2026, the respondents were directed to file specific affidavits answering the queries framed by this Court. Pursuant thereto, the

¶40

7

¶41

respondent has filed an affidavit categorically stating that the option of "Public Health" was not available in the drop-down menu under the Master's Degree column and that the said option was available only under the Diploma and Bachelor's Degree columns. The examination agency has further clarified that it merely collects the information furnished by the candidates in the format prescribed by the recruiting department and that determination of eligibility is exclusively within the domain of the recruiting department.

¶42

The aforesaid affidavit assumes considerable significance. Once the respondents themselves admit that the option of "Public Health" was unavailable under the Master's Degree column, the explanation furnished by the petitioner that she entered the particulars of her Master's Degree in the Bachelor's Degree column because no appropriate option was available in OnLine portal stands duly corroborated by the respondents' own record. Thus, the discrepancy in the OnLine application cannot be attributed to any deliberate misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the petitioner.

¶43

It is equally significant to notice that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the recruitment process, appeared in the written examination, secured 69.750 marks, obtained 3rd rank, was declared successful and was thereafter called for document verification. At no stage has the respondents alleged that the petitioner derived any undue benefit on account of the manner in which she filled up the OnLine application form. The rejection of her candidature is, therefore, founded purely on a technical irregularity.

¶44

8

¶45

The objection raised by the respondents that the petitioner does not possess the prescribed Bachelor's Degree also does not merit acceptance in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, Civil Appeal No.10389 of 2024 . The Supreme Court, while interpreting the expression "degree", has held as under:

¶46

"The term 'degree' is defined under Section 22(3) the UGC Act, which states that the ‘degree’ means the 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and the 'Doctorate Degree'. Thus, wherever the word 'degree' is used, unless a specific exclusion is provided, the same would include within its scope and ambit all three, 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and a 'Doctorate Degree'."

¶47

The Supreme Court further observed:

¶48

"There is no logic or rationale behind excluding the candidates having master's or doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim to the post... because such an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary..."

¶49

The principle laid down by the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The respondents have not pointed out any provision in the recruitment rules or the advertisement specifically excluding candidates possessing a Master's Degree in Public Health from consideration. In the absence of any such exclusion, the petitioner's candidature could not have been rejected merely because she possessed a higher qualification.

¶50

9

¶51

Recruitment rules are intended to secure selection of meritorious and eligible candidates. They cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to penalize a candidate for a bona fide mistake occasioned by the very format of the OnLine application portal, particularly when the respondents themselves admit that the relevant option was unavailable under the Master's Degree column. To sustain the rejection of the petitioner's candidature in such circumstances would amount to elevating form over substance.

¶52

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature is arbitrary, unreasonable and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned communication/order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's OnLine application by taking into consideration the particulars of her Master's Degree in Public Health and to reconsider her candidature for appointment to the post of Training Officer (Hospital Housekeeping), if she is otherwise eligible, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event the petitioner is found entitled to appointment, appropriate consequential orders shall also be passed. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period she did not actually discharge duties.

¶53

As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed . No cost(s).

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶56

Rahul

Smriti Khara v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smriti Khara v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Chand Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaniram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manit Singh Wadhwa Vs Rupchand Agrawal

Vijay Mashrani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh