1 CGHC010304772023 2026:CGHC:39927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7152 of 2023 Santosh Kumar Bara S/o Manohar Ram Aged About 34 Years R/o Shrikot Nawatoli, Post Jawahar Nagar, Kusmi, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate, Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (11th September, 2026) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the list of 2 eligible/ineligible/hold dated 19.8.2023 (Annexure P/4) in respect of the petitioner, whereby his candidature for the post of Training Officer (Turner) has been rejected on the ground that he does not have experience certificate in the relevant trade of the required period, and seeking direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider his candidature for the said post. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.2/Director, Employment and Training, Raipur issued an advertisement in May, 2023, for filling up various posts of Training Officers in Govt. Industrial Training Institutes including six posts of Training Officer (Turner). The petitioner, who is a ITI Certificate holder in ‘Turner’ trade, applied for the post of Training Officer (Turner) and secured 58.75 marks. As he was placed on merit list, he was called for counseling on 18.8.2023. He appeared in the counseling where his candidature was rejected vide list of eligible/ineligible/hold dated 19.8.2023 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that he is having two years experience certificate of ‘Turner’ trade and two years experience certificate of ‘Fitter’ trade whereas the condition stipulated in the advertisement demands three years experience in ‘Turner’ trade from the candidates holding ITI Certificate but the petitioner does not have experience in the relevant trade of the required period. Hence this petition for the following relief: “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Training Officer (Turner). 3 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner eligible for the post of Training Officer (Turner) on the basis of the Experience Certificate issued in accordance with Rules, 2014. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the rejection letter dated 19.08.2023 uploaded in the website. 10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Training Officer (Turner) is wholly arbitrary, illegal and malafide. The petitioner is a meritorious candidate, who scored 58.75 marks and as such, was under the zone of consideration for selection on the said post. He submits that the above recruitment is governed by Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (in short “Recruitment Rules, 2014”) and amendment made in the rules vide Notification dated 15.5.2019. In Schedule-III (See Rule 8) appended with the Recruitment Rules, 2014, NTC/NAC/STC and NAC holders are required to have three years teaching experience in the relevant field of trade for the post of Training Officer (Fitter/Machinist/Turner/Plumber). Thus, it is clear that Fitter, Machinist, Turner and Plumber trades are kept in the relevant field of trade, meaning thereby the petitioner’s experience certificate in ‘Fitter’ trade (from 2.7.2018 to 3.10.2020) ought to have been considered and 4 counted as experience in the ‘Turner’ trade. Had it been done, the petitioner’s experience would have been more than the experience required in the advertisement for the said post. However, the respondent authorities without application of mind, mechanically rejected the candidature of the petitioner. Hence he prays that the instant petition may be allowed and the relief sought for by the petitioner be granted. 4. The respondents/State has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that the candidature of the petitioner has rejected mainly on the ground that he does not possess required experience in the relevant Trade. The petitioner submitted two experience certificates of different Trades and therefore, after due verification/enquiry it was found that he is not satisfying the requisite qualification for the post of Training Officer (Turner), therefore, his candidature was rejected. Hence the instant petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an ITI Certificate holder in ‘Turner’ trade and as per the advertisement, the candidate, who is an ITI Certificate holder, applying for the post of Training Officer (Turner), was required to have three years teaching experience in the relevant trade. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted two separate experience 5 certificates, one pertaining to ‘Turner’ trade and the other pertaining to ‘Fitter’ trade. The experience certificate in ‘Turner’ trade covers a period of two years, whereas the experience certificate in ‘Fitter’ trade covers the period from 02.07.2018 to 03.10.2020. The advertisement, however, specifically prescribed the requisite experience for the post of Training Officer (Turner). The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the prescribed period of experience in the relevant trade. 7. It is a settled principle that the terms and conditions contained in the recruitment advertisement constitute the basis on which the candidates are invited to participate in the selection process, and the eligibility of a candidate has to be assessed with reference to the qualifications and experience specifically prescribed therein. A candidate cannot claim eligibility by combining or substituting experience in one trade for the experience prescribed in another trade, unless the governing rules or the advertisement expressly permit such equivalence. 8. In the present case, the petitioner seeks to rely upon his experience in ‘Fitter’ trade and contends that Fitter, Machinist, Turner and Plumber trades have been grouped together under the expression “relevant field of trade” in Schedule-III appended to the Recruitment Rules, 2014. However, merely because certain trades have been placed under one category or mentioned together in the Schedule, it 6 cannot, by itself, be construed to mean that experience acquired in one trade automatically constitutes experience in every other trade for the purpose of determining eligibility. In the absence of any specific provision in the advertisement or the Recruitment Rules declaring the experience in ‘Fitter’ trade to be equivalent to the experience prescribed for the post of Training Officer (Turner), the petitioner cannot claim such equivalence as a matter of right. 9. It is also significant that the petitioner was fully aware of the eligibility condition prescribed for the post for which he had applied. The respondents, while scrutinizing his documents at the stage of counselling, found that the petitioner possessed only two years' experience in ‘Turner’ trade, whereas the prescribed requirement was three years' experience in the relevant trade. The respondents, therefore, cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or dehors the conditions of recruitment in rejecting his candidature. The decision was founded upon the documents produced by the petitioner himself and upon the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post. 10. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not ordinarily substitute its own assessment of the equivalence or sufficiency of an experience certificate for that of the competent recruiting authority, particularly when the petitioner does not demonstrate that the respondents have violated any statutory provision or have acted contrary to the express 7 terms of the advertisement. The question as to whether experience gained in ‘Fitter’ trade should be treated as experience in ‘Turner’ trade involves an issue of eligibility under the recruitment scheme, and such equivalence cannot be presumed in the absence of an enabling provision. 11. The fact that the petitioner secured 58.75 marks and was called for counselling does not confer any vested right upon him to be appointed. Being called for counselling or being placed within the zone of consideration only entitled the petitioner to have his candidature considered in accordance with the prescribed eligibility conditions. It did not dispense with the requirement of possessing the requisite experience for the post. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Training Officer (Turner) on the ground of his not possessing the experience certificate of the relevant trade for the required period. Therefore, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.09.15 17:00:54 +0530