1 2025:CGHC:11086 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3928 of 2018 1 - Ku. Kavita Tandekar D/o Keshavram Tandekar, Aged About 28 Years P.S. Balod Village Barhi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Management Disaster Punarvash Higher Education, Skill Development Employment Science And Technology Department Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner, Land Record Indravati Bhavan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. P.K. Patel Advocate For State Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 29/01/2018 passed by the respondent no. 2. 10.2 That the Respondents be directed to select the petitioner on post of Patwari. 10.3 That any other relief which the Honourable Court -2- deems fit and proper may also be provided to the Petitioner.” 2. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner applied for the post of Patwari pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.10.2016. He would further submit that the required qualification for the post of Patwari was Higher Secondary and one year diploma certificate in Computer Programming or Data Entry. He would contend that according to Clause 5(4) of the advertisement, one year relaxation would be available to the candidate belonging to the scheduled area in submitting the computer certificate. Mr. Patel would further contend that the petitioner acquired the PGDCA certificate on 10.10.2017 and submitted it before the Collector, District Balod on 10.01.2018 pursuant to the order passed in WP(S) No.7484 of 2017. He would also contend that the certificate so submitted by the petitioner was not considered and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the concerned Collector vide order dated 29.01.2018. He would further argue that though the petitioner is not a resident of the scheduled area but pursuant to the order passed in WP(S) No.7484 of 2017, the PGDCA certificate was submitted within a period of one year. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. He would submit that the petitioner acquired the qualification of the PGDCA after the last date of submission of the application form. He would further submit that the petitioner 3 passed PGDCA examination from C.V. Raman University on 10.10.2017 and the certificate was submitted before the concerned Collector on 10.01.2018. He would contend that according to Clause 5(4) of the advertisement, one year relaxation would be available in submitting the computer certificate if a candidate belongs to the scheduled area. He would further contend that as the petitioner is not a resident of the scheduled area, she would not get that benefit. 4. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a resident of the scheduled area; the examination for the post of Patwari was held on 08.01.2017 whereas the petitioner passed the PGDCA examination on 10.10.2017. She filed Writ Petition (S) No.7484 of 2017 and was permitted to submit the certificate before the authority concerned within a period of two weeks and it was further observed that the authority concerned would decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Clause 5(4) of the advertisement. 6. Clause 5(4) of the Advertisement states that the resident of the scheduled area would get a relaxation of one year in submitting the computer qualification certificate. 7. In the present case, as the petitioner is not a resident of the scheduled area and she submitted the PGDCA certificate after the cut-off date, therefore, her candidature was rejected. -4- 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha