1 2025:CGHC:12504-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 181 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Government Girls Polytechnic, Dharampura-2, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Seema Watti W/o Shri Prakash Chandra Watti Aged About 33 Years Presently Working As Contract Lecturer, Government Girls Polytechnic, Dharampura-2, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, R/o Tara Potai, Thelka Board Road, Ekta Nagar, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Public Services Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Marg, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Nigam and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.03.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.18 10:50:01 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for appellant / State as well as Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on I.A. No.02/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 113 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The appellant / State has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S). No. 3567 of 2016 (Seema Watti vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No. 1 herein. 4. Brief facts are that respondent No. 1 has obtained a Diploma in Costume Design & Dress Making from Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (University of Technology of Madhya Pradesh) in the year 2004, the Respondent No. 1 belongs to the Gond Tribe which is a Scheduled Tribe and the Respondent No. 1 secured 65.27% marks and was placed in Second Division as per 3 the prevailing rules. In pursuance of the Advertisement issued, for appointment of Lecturer on Contract Basis against the vacant posts for a period of one year, by the Directorate of Technical Education, Chhattisgarh; the Respondent No. 1 submitted her candidature for appointment on the post of Contract Lecturer in the department of "Costume Design & Dress Making". The Respondent No. 1 upon fulfilling all the requisites, was appointed as Contract Lecturer in "Costume Design & Dress Making" for a period of one year vide Order dated 26.02.2010. The contract of the Respondent No. 1 for the post of Lecturer was renewed and from time to time and at present, the Respondent No. 1 is working and discharging her duties as Contract Lecturer, Government Girl's Polytechnic. The Chhattisgarh Public Services Commission, Raipur vide Advertisement dated 23.12.2015 Invited applications from desirous candidates for appointment on regular sanctioned posts. Under the Advertisement, 8 posts were advertised for the post of Lecturer in Costume Design and Dress Making. The requisite for appointment on the post of Lecturer in "Costume Design & Dress Making" was that the Candidate must have First Division in the "Costume Design & Dress Making Diploma Course and an alternate qualification was also prescribed for appointment on the said post. The Respondent No. 1 submitted her candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturer in "Costume Design & Dress Making". The interview was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Services Commission, Raipur and thereafter Final Selection 4 Result dated 02.06.2016 wherein the Respondent No. 1's name was also shortlisted for appointment. The Under Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education & Employment Department, Chhattisgarh Government in the name and under the Orders of the Governor issued the Appointment Order dated 14.06.2016 whereby the Respondent No. 1 was appointed ne the regular post of Lecturer, Grade-1 in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- Grade Pay Rs 5,000/- (AICTE). The Respondent No. 1's name appears at Serial no. 14. It is pertinent to mention that vide the Appointment Order, the Respondent No. 1 was posted at Government Girl's Polytechnic, Jagdalpur wherein she is presently working as a Contract Lecturer 8. That, in pursuance of the Appointment Order, when the Respondent No. 1 approached the Principal, Government Girl's Polytechnic, Jagdalpur to take the charge of the lecturer, the Principal, Government Girl's Polytechnic, Jagdalpur refused to give charge to the Respondent No. 1 by holding that the Respondent No. 1 does not fulfill the requisite criteria as the Mark Sheet of the Respondent No. 1 depicts that she secured Second Division in the "Costume Design & Dress Making" Diploma Course. Being aggrieved by the non-grant of charge of post of Lecturer in "Costume Design & Dress Making", the Respondent No. 1 has filed a Writ Petition registered as WPS No. 3567/2016. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. Hence this appeal. 5 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order which has been passed by the learned single Judge is illegal and contrary to Ordinance issued by the Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya. The learned single judge failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 1 herself sought for upgradation i.e. for correction whereby it would lead to show that she was in know of the fact that she was not entitled for the post, as the First Division is required whereas from the mark-sheet, it is reflected that the respondent No. 1 obtained the Second Division and, as such, the Principal has rightly not allowed the respondent No. 1 to join the post. The learned single judge also failed to appreciate that the contention of the petitioner that she has worked as Lecturer in the above said branch at Government Girls Polytechnic Jagdalpur does not relates to the present cause of action as the respondent No. 1 has participated in the fresh recruitment process in pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2 herein, in which though the respondent No. 1 was selected, but as the respondent No. 1 does not possessing the aforesaid requisite qualification in accordance with the advertisement and Rules, 2014, therefore, the appellant No. 2 has rightly refused to hand over the charge of Lecturer, costume design and dress making branch to the respondent No. 1. The learned single judge later failed to appreciate that though the appointment order was issued in favor of the respondent No. 1, however, the respondent No. 1 cannot be handed over the charge of the said post because the 6 respondent No. 1 does not possess the aforesaid required qualification. It is pertinent to submit herein that, as per the condition under para 5 of the advertisement, the selection of the candidate can be canceled at any stage of selection on finding them ineligible and from perusal of the ordinance, it would be clearly reveal that the said ordinance has been implemented from the academic year 2005-2006, whereas, the petitioner has obtained the said diploma certificate in costume design and dress making branch in the year 2004, therefore, the said ordinance is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner remains second division in the aforesaid costume design and dress making branch. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the writ petitioners, considered the qualification, which was prescribed in the advertisement and held observed that holding 65.27% marks in 7 Diploma by the writ petitioner is not in dispute. The question falls for consideration is as to whether that should be considered to be First Division when by the Ordinance the University amended to hold that a candidate securing 65% marks or more in aggregate but less than 75% would be placed in First Division. For which, learned Single Judge referred Clause 9.0 of the Ordinance and held that perusal of the Ordinance would show that it has not touched upon the merit of the candidate. By simply making a change in the criteria 65% marks was considered to be in the bracket of First Division. It is obvious that the merit of the candidate remains the same who obtained a certain percentage and it is only the Division has made the different compartment in 2005. By the said Ordinance, it has been mentioned that the candidate who obtained 65% marks or more but less than 75% would be considered as First Division and that benefit of the Ordinance cannot be denied to the writ petitioner. It is a well settled proposition of law that the equivalence of educational qualification has to be decided by the appointing authority, the Public Service Commission being the appointing authority has recommended for appointment. While deciding on equivalence, the appointing authority is free to consider functional equivalence and not be limited to formal equivalence only. The rules governing the recruitment is silent on this aspect as to what will be regarded as the first division. 9. Learned Single Judge further referred to Schedule III of the Rules, 8 2014 and held that the aforesaid provision speaks about the First Division but what are the marks for the First Division is not being decided. Thus, the issue will fall back to the Ordinance of 2005 to hold that the person who obtained 65% marks shall also be considered as a candidate of First Division. It is also obvious that the University was well aware of the fact that the benefit to be extended to the candidates who are in hold of 65% marks. In the case at hand, the advertisement was issued in the year 2015 and the time the Ordinance was passed in the year 2005, whereby the up gradation of division was in existence. The writ petitioner who holds 65.27% marks would be within the bracket of First Division though at the relevant time when she passed out it was in the bracket of Second Division as the percentile marks would be the nucleus of controversy. The writ petitioner having selected for the post, she cannot be deprived to join the service to create a headwind. Albeit, in the mark sheet Annexure, Second Division has been shown, the benefit of Ordinance would hold the sway in favour of the writ petitioner by treating her to be a candidate of First Division, when the advertisement to the subject post was issued in the year 2015. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable 9 infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet