1 2025:CGHC:26733 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3670 of 2019 Rajkumar Verma S/o Shri Komal Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village And Post Dhara, Tahsil Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Praveen Kumar Soni Near Budha Talab, In Front Of Vivekanand Vidya Mandir, Mazar Gali, Kailashpuri, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 23.6.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the final selection list for the post of Scientific Officer Biology pertaining to respondent No.3 and further if any appointment order issued in favour of respondent No.3 should deserves to be set aside. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.06.25 10:51:57 +0530 2 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the petitioner for the post of Scientific Officer Biology. 10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 10.4. Cost of the petition. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner are that, advertisement was published for the post of Scientific Officer (Biology) by respondent No.2 and as per the advertisement, the qualification for the said post was as follows:- “1. M.Sc. in Botany or Zoology or Biotechnology or Biochemistry or Microbiology or Anthropologist or Judicial Science in 2nd Class 2. Having two years experience in Scientific Research.” 3. Pursuant to above advertisement, the petitioner and respondent No.3 filed applications for post of Scientific Officer (Biology) and after participating in the written examination, both of them were found eligible, they also participated in the interview. In the interview, respondent No.3 was selected in the category of OBC as his aggregate marks in the written examination and interview was higher than the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the experience certificate submitted by respondent No.3 was not genuine, which necessitated filing of instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the certificates [Annexure-P/4 (colley)], respondent No.3 had worked as ‘Guest Lecturer’ in various Govt. Colleges from 2013 to 2018. He further submits that respondent No.3 had filed his Research Certificate (Annexure-P/5), but it 3 does not contain any date as to when he pursued the research, despite that he has been appointed on the post of Scientific Officer (Biology), which is perverse and illegal, therefore, he prays that this petition may be allowed and relief sought for by the petitioner may be granted to him. 5. Respondent No.2, who is the main contesting party in this case, has filed its reply, stating inter alia that, for scrutiny of the certificates, qualification as well as experience certificate, Subject Expert Committee was constituted. The Committee had examined the documents filed by the petitioner, respondent No.3 and other candidates and thereafter, they had declared that respondent No.3 is having requisite qualification in terms of provisions of the advertisement. Referring to the reply, learned counsel further submits that main allegation of the petitioner is that, Research Certificate (Annexure P/5) submitted by respondent No.3 does not contain any date and he had worked as a ‘Guest Lecturer’ from 2013 to 2018 in different Govt. Colleges, but Annexure P/5 is a certificate issued by Professor under whom respondent No.3 was pursuing his Ph.D. degree in Regional Studies (in the field of Anthropology). Content of the certificate specifically shows that at the time of issuance of that certificate, respondent No.3 was pursuing his Ph.D. degree and the same was not completed till issuance of certificate. He further submits that any research scholar while pursuing Ph.D. degree can work as Guest Lecturer in any college and there is no legal bar in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that there is no fault in Research Certificate (Annexure-P/5) filed by respondent No.3 and since he secured higher marks in aggregate than the petitioner, therefore, he was appointed on the post of Scientific Officer (Biology). There is no illegality in his appointment, hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. 4 6. Respondent No.1/State and respondent No.3 have also filed their return. Both counsel for those respondents also supported the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and pray that the petition is liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is that, respondent No.3 worked as ‘Guest Lecturer’ between 2013-18 in various Govt. Colleges and he also filed certificate with regard to his research work. Annexure-P/5 is the Certificate issued by Dr. Meeta Jha, Professor, School of Studies in Psychology, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, which shows that respondent No.3 is pursuing his Ph.D. degree for more than two years in Regional Studies (in the filed of Anthropology) in the topic, “A study of Dietary intake and Health status in relation to Food security, Sustainability, Life style and Psychosocial variable among Gond, Halba, and Kamar Tribes of Chhattisgarh”. Though certificate (Annexure-P/5) does not carry any date, but its content shows that at the time of issuance of aforesaid certificate, respondent No.3 was pursuing his Ph.D. degree under Dr. Meeta Jha, Professor, School of Studies in Psychology, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (CG), who issued aforesaid certificate. 9. As per Annexure P/4 (colley), respondent No.3 had worked as ‘Guest Lecturer’ in various Govt. Colleges from 2013 to 2018, but post of Guest Lecturer is not a permanent post, rather it is a temporary post, that too for few months, as has been mentioned in the aforesaid certificates. Therefore, any person pursuing his Ph.D Degree can also work as Guest Lecturer and there is no legal bar in this regard. Therefore, nothing is found to doubt the genuineness of the certificate (Annexure-P/5) of respondent No.3. 5 10. As per Annexure-P/1, since respondent No.3 had secured higher marks in aggregate (written + interview) than the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that appointment of respondent No.3 was illegal as certificate Annexure- P/5 issued in favour of him is also not found to be invalid or illegal. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit to entertain this petition, hence the same is dismissed accordingly. No cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini