1 CGHC010283382023 2026:CGHC:40524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6027 of 2023 Dhaneshwari Sahu W/o Krishna Kumar, Aged About 29 Years Presently Working As Guest Faculty At Govt ITI, Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh, R/o Indira Nagar, Dongargarh, Ward No. 05, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Skill Development, Training And Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Skill Development, Training And Technical Education And Employment Department, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Industrial Training Institutes Regional Office At Govt ITI, Pulgaon, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Dantewada, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam) Through Its Controller Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/State : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (16th September, 2026) This petition be delinked from the other connected writ petitions. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the communication (Annexure P/1) whereby her candidature for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) has been rejected on the ground that she has less than one year’s experience in the concerned Trade/Branch as per requirement in the advertisement. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.2/Director, Employment and Training, Raipur issued an advertisement dated 5.5.2023, which was published in the daily newspaper on 6.5.2023, and subsequently amended on 13.5.2023, for filling up various posts of Training Officers in Govt. Industrial Training Institutes. The petitioner, who possessed Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Branch and belongs to OBC category, submitted her application for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing). Though she successfully participated in the written examination but 3 during documents verification, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she has less than one year’s experience in the concerned Trade/Branch as per requirement in the advertisement Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon’ble may kindly be pleased to quash (Annexure P/1) whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Training Officer. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner possesses Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Branch. As per advertisement (Annexure P/4), the degree holders are required to have teaching experience of one year in the concerned Trade/Faculty. She along with her application for the post of Training Officer (WC&ED) submitted her experience certificate (Annexure P/15) issued by the Principal, Govt. ITI, Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada in which it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner performed the duty of Guest Lecturer in ‘Workshop Calculation and Science and Engineering Drawing’ Trade/Faculty from 13.7.2022 to 26.5.2023 i.e. for total 1214 hours. He further submits that as per circular dated 12.5.2023 (Annexure P/5) issued by the Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Raipur, to all the Joint 4 Directors (Training) of ITIs, it has been specifically mentioned that a decision has been taken that the training work performed by a Guest Lecturer for more than 1200 hours but less than 2400 hours shall be treated as one year’s experience; training work performed for more than 2400 hours but less than 3600 hours shall be treated as two years’ experience; and training work performed for 3600 hours or more shall be treated as three years’ experience. Since the petitioner performed training work for 1214 hours in the concerned Trade/Faculty as is evident from her experience certificate (Annexure P/15), the respondent authorities were not justified in rejecting her candidature. Therefore, he prays that this petition may be allowed and the relief sought for by the petitioner be granted to her. 5. The State/respondents has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that the instructions contained in circular (Annexure P/5) issued by respondent No.2 are in furtherance of the recruitment rules and the advertisement. Therefore, both the conditions would have to be read together as per rules of harmonious interpretation. He further submits that on conjoint reading of both, it would be evident that a candidate should have one year teaching experience in the relevant Trade/Branch, for which he/she has applied. Since the Guest Lecturers are paid on hourly basis, such candidates should have performed training work for more than 1200 hours and upto 2400 hours within a period of one year whereas the 5 petitioner, in the instant case, has performed training work for 1214 hours within 10 months and 14 days which is impermissible as per the guidelines/instructions issued by Directorate General of Training. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, who is a formal party in this case, has supported the contention raised by learned State counsel. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. As per the advertisement (Annexures P/4 and P/6), a candidate possessing a degree is required to have one year’s teaching experience in the concerned Trade/Branch. The same requirement is also prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non- Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014. Neither the Recruitment Rules nor the advertisement, however, stipulates the manner in which the period of one year’s experience is to be computed, particularly in the case of a Guest Lecturer engaged and paid on an hourly basis. 9. In this regard, the circular dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure P/5) issued by the Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, specifically provides that the training work performed by a Guest Lecturer for more than 1200 hours but less than 2400 hours shall be treated as one year’s experience; training work performed for more 6 than 2400 hours but less than 3600 hours as two years’ experience; and training work performed for 3600 hours or more as three years’ experience. The aforesaid circular does not prescribe that the requisite 1200 hours must necessarily be completed within a period of one calendar year. 10. In the present case, the experience certificate dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure P/15), issued by the Principal, Government ITI, Dantewada, records that the petitioner worked as a Guest Lecturer in the ‘Workshop Calculation and Science & Engineering Drawing’ Trade/Faculty from 13.07.2022 to 26.05.2023 and performed training work for a total of 1214 hours. Thus, although the petitioner had not completed a continuous period of one year, she had admittedly performed more than 1200 hours of training work in the very Trade/Faculty for which she had applied. 11. The principal objection of the respondents is that the aforesaid 1214 hours were completed within a period of 10 months and 14 days and, therefore, could not be treated as one year’s experience. However, the respondents have not been able to point out any provision in the Recruitment Rules, advertisement, or the circular dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure P/5) which requires the prescribed 1200 hours to be completed within a period of one year. In the absence of such a stipulation, an additional condition cannot be imported into the eligibility criteria at the stage of scrutiny of candidature. 7 12. It is also significant that the petitioner possesses the requisite degree in Mechanical Engineering and has furnished an experience certificate issued by the competent authority evidencing 1214 hours of teaching/training experience in the concerned Trade/Faculty. The circular issued by the Directorate itself recognizes training work exceeding 1200 hours as equivalent to one year’s experience for a Guest Lecturer. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner’s candidature solely on the ground that the said 1214 hours were completed in 10 months and 14 days, in the absence of any such requirement in the governing rules, advertisement or circular, cannot be sustained. 13. It is noteworthy to observe that the manner in which the candidature of the petitioner, as also of similarly situated candidates, has been rejected on one technical ground or another, despite their having substantially fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria, is a matter of serious concern. The recruitment process cannot be permitted to become an exercise in eliminating otherwise eligible candidates by importing conditions which are neither contained in the Recruitment Rules nor stipulated in the advertisement or the governing departmental instructions. Such a hyper-technical and restrictive approach not only frustrates the legitimate expectations of candidates who participate in the selection process, but also defeats the very object and purpose of the recruitment undertaken by the State to fill up the vacant posts of Training Officers. The authorities are expected to facilitate a fair and meaningful selection of eligible candidates rather 8 than reject their candidature on untenable or extraneous grounds, thereby compelling them to repeatedly approach this Court for redressal. 14. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the impugned communication (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected for want of one year’s experience, suffers from an erroneous application of the eligibility criteria and is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) by treating the experience certificate dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure P/15) as fulfilling the prescribed experience requirement, subject to satisfaction of all other eligibility conditions. The respondents shall undertake the said exercise in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the advertisement, and complete the same within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt/production of certified copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. 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: 2026.09.21 17:52:12 +0530