1 / 6 CGHC010347652026 2026:CGHC:39292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6582 of 2026 Ritesh Dhidhi S/o Shri Kumar Singh Dhidhi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Banskanta Post- Deori Block- Bagbahara District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Housing And Environment Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgrh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary Shankar Nagar Road Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Through Its Registrar Academic Council Amanaka Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shahil Singh, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 08/09/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 07/2025/Exam dated 24.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director (Planning) and had successfully qualified the written examination. However, at the stage of document verification, his candidature was rejected on the ground JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.09.09 12:22:06 +0530 2 / 6 that the nomenclature of his Master's Degree differed from the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, and consequently he was denied participation in the interview. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner approached respondent No. 3, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, which is the competent academic authority, and the Academic Council of the University, vide Resolution dated 28.07.2026, issued an Equivalence Certificate certifying that the petitioner's degree is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement and that the course contents for the relevant academic sessions are identical. It is further submitted that although the final selection list has already been published, no appointment orders have yet been issued to the selected candidates. The petitioner does not challenge the merit or selection of any candidate and confines his claim to consideration of his own candidature on the basis of the equivalence certificate issued by the competent academic authority. Learned counsel, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmikant Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2025 INSC 1385, submits that due deference ought to be given to the determination of equivalence made by the competent academic authority. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned rejection slip be quashed and the respondents be directed to accept the equivalence certificate and permit the petitioner to participate in a special interview and consider his candidature for appointment in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the PSC opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the 3 / 6 advertisement dated 31.12.2025 specifically prescribed the requisite educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director (Planning) i.e. नियोज/ सिटी प्लानिंग/ शहरी नियोज/हउसिंग/कं ट्री प्लानिंग/ ग्रामीण नियोज/ अधोरीच नियोकं नियोज/ परिरीवह नियोज/पयो"वरीण नियोज. He further submits that Clause 5 of the Important Tips appended to the advertisement categorically required every candidate, before submitting the online application, to satisfy himself/herself as to his/her eligibility with regard to the prescribed educational qualification, experience and age and no documents will be considered after the last date. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was aware of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement and, nevertheless, his candidature was found deficient at the stage of document verification. It is submitted that the equivalence certificate relied upon by the petitioner was obtained and submitted by way of representation only on 28.07.2026, whereas the interview had already been conducted and the final selection list had been published on 12.05.2026. Thus, the equivalence certificate having been produced after conclusion of the selection process, the same cannot be taken into consideration at this belated stage so as to reopen or alter the selection process already concluded. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 4. It is not in dispute that the advertisement prescribed the requisite educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director (Planning), namely, a Master's Degree in नियोज/ सिटी प्लानिंग/शहरी नियोज/हउसिंग/ कं ट्री प्लानिंग/ ग्रामीण नियोज/ अधोरीच नियोज/परिरीवह 4 / 6 नियोज/ पयो"वरीण नियोज. The advertisement also specifically required the candidates, under Clause 5 of the Important Tips, to ascertain their eligibility with regard to the prescribed educational qualification, experience and age before submitting their online applications. I also specifies that no documents will be considered after last date of submission of application form. 5. In the present case, the petitioner's candidature was rejected at the stage of document verification as the nomenclature of the Master's Degree possessed by him did not correspond with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioner thereafter approached respondent No. 3-University, and the Academic Council, vide Resolution dated 28.07.2026, issued an equivalence certificate certifying that the degree possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. 6. However, the said equivalence certificate was admittedly issued only on 28.07.2026 and was submitted by the petitioner by way of representation thereafter. By that time, the interview had already been conducted and the final selection list had been published on 12.05.2026. Thus, the equivalence of the petitioner's degree was not established before the recruiting authority at the stage when his eligibility was required to be considered in terms of the advertisement. 7. In the opinion of this Court, merely because the competent academic authority has subsequently certified the equivalence of the petitioner's degree, the same cannot, in the facts of the 5 / 6 present case, be permitted to retrospectively cure the deficiency in his candidature after conclusion of the selection process. If the petitioner intended to claim his degree as equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, such equivalence ought to have been established and the requisite certificate ought to have been produced at the time of submission of the application or, at the latest, at the stage of document verification, so that the recruiting authority could have considered his eligibility along with other candidates participating in the selection process. 8. The fact that no appointment orders may have been issued to the selected candidates does not, by itself, confer a right upon the petitioner to reopen a selection process which has already culminated in publication of the final selection list. The petitioner seeks, in substance, a special interview on the basis of a certificate which came into existence after the entire selection process had been substantially concluded. Granting such relief would amount to permitting the petitioner to participate in the selection process on the basis of a qualification/equivalence established at a stage subsequent to that prescribed under the advertisement. 9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon Laxmikant Sharma (supra) is also of no assistance to the petitioner. The said decision cannot be applied to the peculiar facts of the present case where the equivalence certificate relied upon by the petitioner was issued only after the interview had been conducted and the final selection list had already been published. The issue here is not as to whether the competent 6 / 6 academic authority is entitled to determine equivalence, but whether such determination, made subsequent to the conclusion of the selection process, can be relied upon to reopen the process and grant the petitioner a special opportunity to participate therein. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same cannot be permitted. 10. Consequently, the subsequent equivalence certificate dated 28.07.2026 cannot be made the basis for quashing the rejection of the petitioner's candidature or for directing the respondents to conduct a special interview. The petitioner was required to establish his eligibility in accordance with the terms of the advertisement at the relevant stage of the selection process and cannot claim a right to participate therein on the basis of an equivalence certificate obtained after publication of the final selection list. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti