1 2025:CGHC:16720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8700 of 2023 • Govind Prasad Dewangan S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Devi Chowk Shivni. P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(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 Deparrtment, Gramodyog Directorate (Handloom), Block- 4th Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chattisgarh 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 Pokhasan, Road, No.1 Thane, (W) Mumbai (M.H.) ... Respondent(s) MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.06.06 14:46:36 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3/ CGPSC : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the appointment of the private respondent No. 6 Smt. Shraddha Dwivedi who is working as Lecturer Weaving, Indian Institute of Handloom Technology Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) since 03.07.2018 (Annexure P/6) and also challenged the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that: (a) The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued advertisement on 31.05.2017 (Annexure P/1) for direct recruitment on the post of Lecturer and Librarian in ITI Weaving Technology, Indian Institute of Handloom Technology Champa for appointment of Lecturer Weaving, Textile Design, Drawing/Processing/ Printing/Testing and Mechanical Engineering Village Industries Department for 5 posts in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600- 39,100+5400. (b)The qualification prescribed for the appointment on the post of Lecturer Weaving is that the candidate should have completed 3 completed degree course in Textile Technology with First Division from recognized university and the candidate should have 3 years experience of working in the textile industry or working experience in a recognized or registered handloom or he should have experience or diploma in handloom technology or 3 years diploma and he should have 5 years experience in weaving/teaching experience in any textile industry or institution. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent No. 6 have participated in the selection process and the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has issued final selection list of Lecturers in various faculty and accordingly the respondent No. 6 was selected on the post of Lecturer Weaving and the petitioner Govind Prasad Dewangan stood at serial No. 1 in the waiting list, thereafter, the Rural Development Department has issued appointment order of the respondent No. 6 on 03.07.2018. In pursuance of appointment order, the respondent No. 6 has joined the services. (c) After 3 years of appointment of respondent No. 6, the petitioner has filed writ petition in the year 2021 which was registered as Writ Petition (S) No. 3306/2021. Wherein this Court vide order dated 06.07.2021 (Annexure P/7) has directed the respondent No. 3 to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the rule and regulation governing the field on the complaint made by the petitioner. This Court has also directed that respondent No. 6 will also be given an opportunity of hearing by respondent No.3 while conducting the enquiry. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has submitted representation before the respondent No. 4 3 on 03.08.2021 (Annexure P/8) which has been rejected by respondent No. 3 on 03.05.2023 vide Annexure P/15. Hence this petition. 3. Being aggrieved with the appointment order of the respondent No. 6 and subsequent order passed by the respondent, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition mainly contending that the certificates obtained by the respondent No. 6 is forged as the first certificate issued by the Raymond Limited Chhindwada wherein it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 6 has worked with the Designing Department and thereafter, when she has realized her mistake another certificate has been submitted by her which was issued by the Raymond Limited wherein it has been mentioned that she has done the work in the Department of Weaving as well as Sample Designing Department which clearly shows that a forged and fabricated certificate has been given by the respondent No. 6 and on that strength of forged certificate the appointment of the respondent No. 6 is bad in law and would prayed for quashing of the impugned appointment order dated 03.07.2018 (Annexure P/6), and in her place appointment order be issued in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4. The State has filed their return in which it has been stated that the certificate submitted by the respondent No. 6 is found to be genuine as sample weaving is the part of designing, therefore, she was fully eligible for appointment on the post of Lecturer Weaving, as such, there is no irregularity or illegality on the part of the State 5 to issue appointment order in favour of the respondent No. 6. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has not placed any material to substantiate that the certificate issued by the private company in favour of the respondent No. 6 is forged and fabricated, therefore, there is no material for the office to record a finding against the selected candidate and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This Court at the admission stage, on 01.11.2023 has put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the weaving and designing are separate department or not and place the material to substantiate this submission accordingly, adjournment was sought on this count. Thereafter, the matter is taken up today for hearing and learned counsel for the petitioner would refer the advertisement only and would submit that in the advertisement different posts were advertised which consists of drawing, weaving, therefore, it cannot be said that drawing includes sample weaving, as such, he would further submit that whatever the order passed by this Court on 01.11.2023 has already been complied with and there is sufficient material to record such finding against the respondent No. 6 and would pray for admission of the writ petition. 7. To ascertain whether the appointment of the respondent No. 6 is legal or not, this Court has to understand the issue whether weaving and designing are interconnected and any material has 6 been placed on record by the petitioner to nullify the appointment of respondent No. 6 or not. 8. The textile means something made by knitting, weaving or crocheting fibers together which consists of weaving, designing and other activities. The weaving or designing is the manner in which the warp and weft threads are interlaced. This Court very well visualized that unless and until the designing of the textile is not done weaving cannot be done and if a person weaves a cloth it has to understand pattern and design of the cloth, then only weaving can be done, as such, the contentions raised by the State that the sample weaving is part of designing cannot said to be illegal or suffers from perversity which warrants interference by this Court. 9. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any specific material, particularly relates to textile engineering which supports the submissions made by the petitioner that the weaving and designing are separate department despite direction of this Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not placed any material that certificate issued by private company is bogus or fabricated by respondent No. 6 only. As such, presumption can be drawn that the Public Service Commission being a constitutional body who has conducted the appointment procedure in a transparent and fair manner and has not committed illegality or irregularity in absence of any such material placed on record by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is held that appointment of respondent No. 6 is legal, justified and not liable to be interfered 7 by this Court. 10. The writ petition sans merit, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish