1 2025:CGHC:48127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10973 of 2025 1 - Ajay Kumar Saw S/o Shri Kishun Saw, Aged About 31 Years R/o Sadak Para, Taldeori, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Sector 19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Forest Officer-Cum-Chairman Of The Selection Committee, Forest Division Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Anand Tiwari S/o Shri Ramvilas Tiwari, Aged About 32 Years Proprietor Of M/s Anand Tiwari Contractor And Transporter, Address Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to allow him to participate in the further steps of selection process of Light Motor Vehicle Driver and Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver initiated in the year 2024-2025 by the Forest Department wherein he has declared ineligible on the count that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was found false and fabricated. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.09.25 10:54:14 +0530 2 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the respondent Forest Department has initiated the proceedings for recruitment of the post of light motor vehicle driver and heavy motor vehicle driver and according to the advertisement, the qualification for the said post is that the candidate should have two years experience of driving light motor vehicle and heavy motor vehicle. The petitioner was found place in the list, thereafter his candidature was examined and to ascertain the fitness of experience certificate submitted by the petitioner, a team was constituted who has contacted the authorities/persons who have issued the certificate. It is also the case of the petitioner that in driving license, his address has been mentioned as Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh, therefore, the person with whom he has worked cannot trace out the true person and accordingly he has given a statement that he does not know the petitioner and has not worked with him and a forged certificate has been issued. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an affidavit of the said person wherein he has stated that I know the petitioner and he has worked with him for 02 years which has not been considered by the respondents, as such, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the memo by which his candidature for appointment has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have grossly erred in holding that the experience certificate of the petitioner is forged and they hae wrongly ignored that the petitioner has submitted the same experience certificate which was submitted earlier and the petitioner has not submitted any new document. He would further submit that the petitioner’s experience certificate is forged and illegal, as such, so there was no other option for him to submit the 3 affidavit of respondent No. 4 who has issued the experience certificate describing the entire scenario which had happened. He would further submit that the respondent No. 4 has stated on affidavit that he has issued the experience certificate to the petitioner and he could not recognize him at the time when the persons of the department asked about the certificate of the petitioner because at the time the persons of the department had asked about Ajay from Madhya Pradesh but respondent No. 4 only knows that petitioner is from Chhattisgarh and respondent No. 4 could not check that the driving license was issued to the petitioner by the State of Madhya Pradesh. He would further submit that the respondents ought to have considered the affidavit of respondent No. 4 because apart from that there is no other method to show that the experience certificate issued by respondent No. 4 is genuine. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposing the submission would submit that from records particularly statement of the owner of Mr. Anand Tiwari, Proprietor, it is quite vivid that he does not know the person Ajay Kumar Saw and the signature is forged one. Even if the subsequent affidavit has been filed by Mr. Anand Tiwari, it cannot be said that the petitioner is genuine person, therefore, he would submit that since the candidature is in question therefore, the claim has rightly rejected and would pray for rejection of the petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since his address is given in the Singrauli therefore probably the employer with whom he has worked has not identified the petitioner, therefore, on 4 misconception of the fact he has made statement which has been rightly rectified by way of an affidavit, therefore, this fact should have been considered and he should be held eligible for appointment is considered. 7. The record of the case would show that the certificate has been annexed by the petitioner in the selection process wherein he has stated that from June 2014 to July 2018 he has worked. This fact itself creates doubt as it is not possible that if an employee has worked with an employer for more than 04 years, it cannot imagine that the employer with whom he has worked and is doing job of driving of the vehicle, is not known to the petitioner and even in the subsequent affidavit he has also stated that the Police person has come whereas in the statement given by him during enquiry, he has stated that the person from Forest Department has come, therefore, the subsequent affidavit creates doubt. Even the petitioner is not able to point out that the said statement was recorded by adopting any coercive steps or any illegal manner or the statement which have been stated by Mr. Anand Tiwari has been manipulated by the authority in absence of any such material, this Court cannot consider that the first statement made by Mr. Anand Tiwari is incorrect, therefore, I am of the view that the respondents have not committed any illegality in declaring the petitioner to be ineligible. 8. The instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika