1 2025:CGHC:41343-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 612 of 2025 Govind Prasad Dewangan S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Devi Chowk Shivni. P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Gramodyog, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Department of Gramodyog, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secretary, CGPSC, State of Chhattisgarh. Raipur District -Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Director Head of Handloom Department, Gramodyog Directorate (Handloom), Block- 4th Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chattisgarh BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.18 18:49:47 +0530 2 5. The Senior Manager - Hr And A Raymond Limited, Textile Division, B-1, A.K.V.N. Kailash Nagar, Sausar, Chhindwada, 480106 (M.P.) 6. Smt. Shraddha Dwiwedi W/o Shri Prakash Dubey Aged About 33 Years Presently Working As Lecturer, Weaving, Posted At Indian Institute Of Handloom Technology, Champa, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh 7. The Principal Indian Institute Of Handloom Technology, Champa, Tahsil-Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 8. The Vice President (Manufacturing) Textile Division, Raymond Limited, Jakergram Phokhasan, Road, No.1 Thane, (W) Mumbai (M.H.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, 3 appearing for respondent No. 3 on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025), the same is allowed. Delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8700 of 2023 (Govind Prasad Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short, “CGPSC”) issued an advertisement dated 31.05.2017 for direct recruitment to the posts of Lecturer and Librarian in ITI Weaving Technology, Indian Institute of Handloom Technology, Champa, under the Village Industries Department. For the post of Lecturer (Weaving), five vacancies were advertised in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100 + GP 5400. The qualification prescribed was a degree in Textile Technology with First Division from a recognized University, together with requisite experience in weaving/handloom technology/teaching, as stipulated in the advertisement. 5. The appellant and private respondent No. 6 both applied and participated in the selection process. The final selection list issued by the CGPSC reflected respondent No. 6 as selected on the post of Lecturer (Weaving), while the appellant was placed at Sl.No. 1 in the 4 waiting list. Pursuant to appointment order dated 03.07.2018 issued by the Rural Development Department, respondent No. 6 joined service. 6. After nearly three years, the appellant filed WPS No. 3306 of 2021 alleging that respondent No. 6 had secured appointment on the strength of forged and fabricated experience certificates. By order dated 06.07.2021, the learned Single Judge directed the competent authority (respondent No. 3 therein) to examine the complaint and pass an appropriate order after granting opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 6. The competent authority, upon such consideration, rejected the appellant’s representation vide order dated 03.05.2023. 7. The appellant thereafter preferred WPS No. 8700 of 2023 assailing both the appointment of respondent No. 6 and the rejection of his representation. His principal contention was that respondent No. 6 did not possess the requisite experience in Weaving as per the advertisement, and that the experience certificates produced by her were contradictory and fabricated. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 09.04.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of respondent No. 6 is unsustainable in law since she did not fulfill the eligibility conditions on the date of application. It is urged that Weaving and Designing are distinct fields, whereas respondent No. 6 had initially produced a certificate relating to Designing only. It is further contended that when complaints were made, respondent No. 6 subsequently produced another certificate mentioning both Weaving and Designing, 5 thereby rendering her selection tainted. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submit that the learned Single Judge, upon due consideration of the material on record, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. It is contended that the certificate produced by respondent No.6 was found genuine; that sample weaving forms part of designing; and that no cogent evidence has been produced by the appellant to demonstrate forgery. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the record. 11. It is apparent from the proceedings before the learned Single Judge that the appellant was specifically directed to place material to substantiate his submission that Weaving and Designing are distinct departments. Save for a bare reference to the advertisement, no technical material or expert opinion was filed. 12. The learned Single Judge, after examining the concepts of “weaving” and “designing” in the context of textile technology, came to the conclusion that the two are interrelated processes and cannot be treated as mutually exclusive. Unless the designing of the fabric is conceived, weaving cannot be executed. The finding that sample weaving is part of designing, therefore, cannot be termed perverse or contrary to record. Moreover, the appellant has not placed any reliable material to establish that the experience certificate issued by a private employer in favour of respondent No. 6 was forged or fabricated. In 6 absence of such material, this Court is not inclined to discard the presumption that a constitutional body like the CGPSC conducted the selection process fairly and transparently. 13. Having considered the pleadings, the rival submissions advanced, and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional infirmity is made out so as to warrant interference in this intra-Court appeal. 14. Consequently, finding no substance in this appeal, the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan