1 2025:CGHC:38958-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 572 of 2025 Rajkumar Verma S/o Shri Komal Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Dhara, Tahsil Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant 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 Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.07 10:52:15 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.08.2025 1. The appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 23/06/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 3670/2019, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. In the writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “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. 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.” 3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner are that, advertisement was published for the post of Scientific Officer 3 (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." 4. 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. 5. Relevant paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- 9. As per Annexure P/4, 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 4 legal bar in this regard. Therefore, nothing is found to doubt the genuineness of the certificate (Annexure-P/5) of respondent No.3. 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) 6. In the writ petition, it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that as per the certificates [Annexure-P/4], 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 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. Learned counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in ignoring while deciding the writ petition that the Experience Certificate is issued by the person who 5 is not competent to issue the same, because she was Co- Supervisor and the Head of Department has not signed the same under whom the respondent No.3 was pursuing his Ph.D. 7. In the writ petition, the respondent No.2 who is the main contesting party contended 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. He further contended that any research scholar while pursuing Ph.D. degree can work as Guest Lecturer in any college, there is no legal bar in this regard and 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. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition that 6 any person pursuing his Ph.D Degree can also work as Guest Lecturer and there is no legal bar in this regard; particularly considering that in the recruitment process (written and interview), the respondent No.3 secured higher marks than the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib