Dismissed

Rahul Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026WPS/9410/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his candidature for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) on the ground that his experience certificate dated 8.8.2023 was issued after the application cut-off date of 28.5.2023. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove submission of any experience certificate before the cut-off date, and dismissed the petition relying on Supreme Court precedents requiring eligibility documents to be possessed by the prescribed date.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rahul Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010397362023

2026:CGHC:40525

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 9410 of 2023

¶7

Rahul Soni S/o Lachhan Prasad Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o Mig-B14, Sharda Vihar, Korba (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Employment And Training Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block 4 First Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Its Secretary, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Joint Director I.T.I. Bilaspur Region, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

5 - Principal I.T.I. Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner :	Mr. Dhani Ram Patel and Ms. Versha Patel, Advocates.
For Respondents No.1,2, :	Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General
4 & 5/State
For Respondent No.3 :	Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate.

¶17

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

(16^th September, 2026)

¶21

This petition be delinked from the other connected writ petitions.

¶22

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8.11.2023 (Annexure P/1) whereby his representation dated 25.10.2023 has been rejected on the ground that the experience certificate dated 8.8.2023 submitted by him was issued after last date of submission of the applications i.e. 28.5.2023.

¶23

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, who belongs to SC category and 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 but his candidature has been rejected by the impugned communication on the ground that the experience certificate dated 8.8.2023 submitted by him was issued after last date of submission of the applications i.e. 28.5.2023. Hence this petition for the following relief:

¶24

¶25

“I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 08/11/2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the office of Respondent No.2.

¶26

II. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take into consideration the documents of the petitioner and accept the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Training Officer, Workshop Calculation and Engineering Drawing and thereafter issue the appointment order for the said post in his favour.

¶27

III. That, the cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

¶28

IV. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner possesses Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Branch. The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, participated in the recruitment process for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing), secured 79.255 marks in the written examination and figured at Serial No.141 in the merit list. During document verification, certain objections were raised regarding his experience certificate, bank statement and attendance records. The petitioner thereafter produced all the requisite documents, including his appointment orders, experience certificate, bank statements and

¶30

¶31

certified attendance sheets, and repeatedly submitted representations, but his candidature was not considered. He would further submit that pursuant to the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by this Court in WPS No.8577 of 2023, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation, which has been rejected solely on the ground that his experience certificate was issued after the cut-off date. He submits that the petitioner had applied for the certificate on 26.05.2023, whereas it was issued by the competent authority on 08.08.2023; hence, the delay was attributable to the authority and could not prejudice the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents have accepted similarly placed candidates' experience certificates issued after the last date of application. The impugned action is, therefore, arbitrary, discriminatory and based on hyper-technical considerations. Hence he prays that this petition may be allowed and the relief sought for by the petitioner be granted to him. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 9.5.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.5506/2022 in the matter of Gaurav Swarnkar Vs. State of CG and others .

¶32

The State/respondents has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was issued on 8.8.2023 i.e. after the last date of submission of applications i.e. 28.5.2023. As such, the experience certificate was issued after the cut off date. This apart, the petitioner also failed to produce his bank statement regarding receipt of

¶33

¶34

honorarium as a Guest Lecturer for verification of his experience. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and the present petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, who is a formal party in this case, has supported the contention raised by learned State counsel.

¶36

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

¶37

The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing). He submitted his experience certificate (page 64 of the petition) issued on 8.8.2023 by the Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba whereas as per advertisement the cut off date for filing application along with necessary documents was 28.5.2023. From the material on record, it is found that the petitioner had not submitted any experience certificate prior to the cut off date, though he has also filed experience certificate (page 138 of the petition) dated 31.12.2019 issued by the Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba, which he claims to have submitted along with his application but neither it reflects from the impugned order (Annexure P/1) nor the petitioner has filed before this Court copy of the application in which the said experience certificate is enclosed.

¶38

¶39

In the matter of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman JEE and others reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 7 as under:

¶40

“7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.”

¶41

In the matter of Divya Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 448 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 86 as under:

¶42

“86. The rules clearly mandate and as has been held in the case of Gaurav Singh (supra), any mistake/omission/negligence cannot be condoned so as to extend the deadline for production of the documents. Neither the Office Memorandum nor the rules

¶43

¶44

in question can be construed as directory. They prescribe clearly the eligibility criterion and the date before which the certificate should be possessed and the date before which the certificate should be submitted. They also prescribe the consequence for the omission. As the old ditty goes for a want of a horseshoe nail, kingdoms have been lost. Here we are dealing with crucial documents determining eligibility. The petitioners who did not possess the valid documentation determining their eligibility, before the prescribed cut-off date, cannot complain, if their claim for categorization as EWS was rejected.”

¶45

In the instant case, the petitioner filed his experience certificate (page 64 of the petition) issued on 8.8.2023 whereas the cut off date prescribed in the advertisement for submission of application with necessary documents was 28.5.2023. Though the petitioner claims to have filed experience certificate (page 138 of the petition) dated 31.12.2019 issued by the Principal, Institute of Technology, Korba before the respondent authorities along with his application but there is nothing on record which could show filing of any such experience certificate along with the application by the petitioner prior to the cut off date.

¶46

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case in light of the aforesaid settled legal principles, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned order (Annexure P/1) rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2023.

¶47

¶48

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49