1 CGHC010241652026 2026:CGHC:37817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4900 of 2026 Maksudan Teta S/o Devlal Teta Aged About 37 Years R/o Village/ Post Badegauri, Tehsil Charama, District North Bastar Kanker, Pin 494337 (C.G.) . Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Department Of Women And Child Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - District Project Officer Department Of Women And Child Welfare, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Laxmi Kashyap W/o Shiv Kumar Aged About 34 Years R/o Naya Para, Adawal, Purana Hanuman Mandir Gali, Jagdalpur, Bastar (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shahil Singh, PL For Resp. No.5 : None, though served (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/08/2026 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.08.25 10:34:08 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has called in question the final merit list dated 16.04.2026 issued for the post of Gender Specialist (Contractual) under Mission Shakti, Department of Women and Child Welfare, District Bastar, as also the order dated 16.04.2026 whereby the claim/objection raised by the petitioner came to be rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualification prescribed for the post and had submitted his application along with the documents required under the prescribed application form. It is submitted that Clause 16 of the application form required, amongst other documents, submission of the degree of the professional course and did not require submission of the graduation degree and marksheet. It is further submitted that the petitioner secured 54.28 marks, being the highest marks, but was declared ineligible on the ground that he had not submitted his graduation degree and marksheet along with the application. The petitioner thereafter submitted his graduation degree and marksheet along with his claim/objection, but the same was rejected. It is also submitted that the private respondent was declared successful in the final select list despite having secured 42.97 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured 54.28 marks. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that submission of the graduation certificate along with the application was mandatory in terms of Clause 13 of the advertisement, notwithstanding its omission in Clause 16. It is further submitted that subsequent production of the certificate at the stage of document verification could not cure the defect. The selection 3 process has already been completed, though appointment orders have not yet been issued. 4. None for respondent No.5 though notice has been served. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material available on record. 6. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner could have been declared ineligible solely on account of non-submission of the graduation degree and marksheet along with the application, particularly when the application form prescribed under Clause 16 required submission of the degree of the professional course but did not specifically require submission of the graduation degree and marksheet. 7. The advertisement prescribed graduation in Social Work or another social field as the educational qualification for the post in question. The petitioner admittedly possessed the requisite qualification. The prescribed application form, however, required submission of the degree of the professional course amongst the documents to accompany the application and did not specifically require the graduation degree and marksheet. 8. The petitioner submitted his application in accordance with the documents specified in the prescribed application form. Subsequently, when the issue of his eligibility was raised, he produced his graduation degree and marksheet along with his claim/objection. Thus, there is no dispute that the petitioner possessed the requisite educational qualification; the objection raised by the respondents relates only to the stage at which proof of such qualification was required to be submitted. 4 9. The State has relied upon Clause 13 of the advertisement to contend that submission of the graduation certificate along with the application was mandatory. However, when the specific application form prescribed by the respondents required submission of the degree of the professional course and did not specifically require submission of the graduation degree and marksheet, the petitioner cannot be faulted for having submitted the documents in accordance with the requirement contained in the prescribed application form. The requirement contained in the advertisement and the application form, therefore, cannot be applied in a manner which operates to the prejudice of the petitioner in the face of such ambiguity. 10. It is also relevant that the petitioner had, in fact, acquired the requisite educational qualification and subsequently produced the graduation degree and marksheet along with his claim/objection. The respondents, therefore, were required to consider the petitioner’s claim in the light of his actual eligibility instead of rejecting the same solely on the ground of non-submission of the graduation degree and marksheet along with the original application. 11. The petitioner had secured 54.28 marks, whereas the private respondent, who was included in the final select list, had secured 42.97 marks. Though merit has to be determined in accordance with the applicable selection criteria, exclusion of the petitioner from consideration on the ground noticed hereinabove, despite his possessing the prescribed qualification and securing the higher marks, cannot be sustained. 5 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim/objection and his consequential exclusion from the final merit list cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 14. The final merit list dated 16.04.2026 issued for the post of Gender Specialist (Contractual), Mission Shakti, Department of Women and Child Welfare, District Bastar, insofar as it excludes the petitioner, and the order dated 16.04.2026 rejecting the petitioner’s claim/objection, are hereby quashed. 15. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner as eligible for the post in question and prepare a fresh final merit list after taking into consideration his eligibility and marks, in accordance with the applicable selection criteria. In case the petitioner is found entitled to selection on the basis of the fresh merit list, the respondents shall take consequential steps for his appointment in accordance with law. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul