1 2025:CGHC:3350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 493 of 2025 1 - Tribhuwan Prakash Banjare S/o Shri Naval Kumar Banjare Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khamhariya Post Farhada Thana Jarhagaon Tehsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Employment And Training Depratment Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur District -Raipur (C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Department Indravati Bhawan Block - 4 First Floor Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Employment And Training Division Bilapsur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director (Training) Industrial Training Institute Regional Office Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 20.01.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the candidature of petitioner has been rejected/declared ineligible for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator and Programing Assistant). 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the Director, Directorate of Employment & Training, Raipur. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner eligible & consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator and Programing Assistant) with all consequential benefits. 10.4 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 14.11.2024 issued by the respondent Joint Director (Regional), Industrial Training Institute, Regional Office Bilaspur, 3 the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Training Officer (COPA) has been rejected for the reason that petitioner got the salary of 02 years in bank, therefore, the petitioner is not having sufficient experience. He submits that thereafter, the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 was issued by the respondent Director, Directorate of Employment & Training, Raipur, whereby the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Training Officer (COPA) was rejected for the reason that the petitioner is unable to submit the bank statement related to the salary of the prescribed teaching experience period, therefore, petitioner is not eligible for selection to the post of Training Officer. He further submits that an identical bunch of petition has been decided on 19.09.2023 bearing WPS No.8069/2023 (Yashashvi Pansari vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), and the present petition may also be disposed off in light of the aforesaid order. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the impugned orders have rightly been passed and require no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record as also the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the posts of Training Officers pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner was found successful. 4 The petitioner was called for verification of the documents and he was asked to submit documents with regard to his educational qualification, experience, affidavit and salary paid to him but there was no requirement to submit documents with regard to mode of payment of salary. In the advertisement also, there is no such condition. As per the application form, the candidates were required to submit an experience certificate, salary details, appointment order etc. 6. The NCVT issued instructions in the Management Manual for Industrial Trainee Institutes and one of the clauses deals with Payment of Salary to Vocational Instructors of ITIs/ITCs(Regular/Contract basis) through banks/post offices only. 7. The instruction/recommendation is reproduced herein below:- "It was brought to the notice of DGET that some of the ITIS/ITCs are paying very meager salary to instructors appointed on contract basis. As a result, good quality instructors were not attracted to these jobs. Therefore, to bring further transparency and uniformity in the system, it was proposed (in 39th meeting of the Council held 12 on January, 2011) that instructors(regular/contract basis) engaged all in ITIS/ITCS should be paid their remunerations only through banks/post offices. This system should ensure that recommended salaries are paid to these instructors regularly and also on time.” 8. The language of above referred guideline would make it clear that it was issued to bring transparency and uniformity to the 5 recruitment process. One of the objectives was to ensure the payment of recommended salaries regularly on time. As this condition is not mentioned either in the recruitment Rules or in the advertisement, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this instruction / recommendation was directory in nature and its non- compliance will not lead to the rejection of the candidature of any of the candidates. 9. If any of the application forms were found doubtful or incomplete, the recruitment agency or the respondents ought to have conducted an inquiry to ascertain the veracity of entries made in the application form. It is informed that in some of the cases, inquires were conducted and reports are not against the petitioners. In most of the cases, the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they were not getting salary in cash. 10. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner was permitted to make a representation before the respondent authorities. Respondent No. 2 rejected the representations of the petitioner assigning one reason that the petitioner was not getting salary either through bank accounts or post office. The reasons assigned by respondent No. 2 while rejecting the representations of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the same is contrary to the services Rules and conditions enumerated in the advertisement, therefore, the orders passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected are 6 hereby quashed. 11. The respondent authorities are granted 30 days to scrutinize the candidature of the petitioner with regard to his suitability. The candidature of the petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that he has failed to place on record any document with regard to the mode of payment of salary. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to inquire into other criteria, if necessary. There is no need for further inquiry, particularly in the cases where inquiry has already been conducted by the respondent authorities. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 60 days and thereafter, the respondents are directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioner/eligible candidate within a period of 15 days. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these petitions are disposed off. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha