1 CGHC010119122025 2026:CGHC:40812 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2189 of 2025 Akansha Bhagat D/o Ram Kumar Bhagat Aged About 26 Years R/o. Digma, Atal Chowk, Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Skill and Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Employment And Training (Training Side) Directorate, Block No. 4, First Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal Through- Controller Of Examination, North Block, Section-19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, GA For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 18/09/2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to afford her a chance of document verification and, if the petitioner is found successful in the said document verification process and fulfills the requisite eligibility conditions for being appointed to the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant), appropriate order be issued in her favour. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.09.22 10:44:05 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main grievance of the petitioner is that, for the purpose of document verification, no notice or text message was issued or otherwise intimated to the petitioner requiring her to appear before the centre where the document verification was to be conducted. By referring to paragraph 8.5 of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in some cases the candidates were intimated through text messages, whereas no such text message was issued to the petitioner. Due to the lack of information and intimation, the petitioner could not appear or participate in the document verification and, consequently, her candidature was not allowed to participate in further counselling and document verification. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice regarding date of verification published in a newspaper being the Raipur publication, the petitioner could not get information regarding the date and place of document verification, therefore, she was deprived of participation in the said document verification. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, by referring to Annexure R/1, submits that in the daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, dated 21.10.2024, information was published regarding the document verification to be conducted from 21.10.2024 to 24.10.2024 and that, for further information, the details could be seen on the website of CGITI. Annexure R/1 is an intimation regarding the date of document verification. Since the petitioner is not vigilant to enquire about any updation made by the Department from time to time, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 15.04.2025, the State was directed to file a reply specifically stating whether, as mentioned in Clause 9 (iii) of the advertisement, the date of counselling as well as the selection of the petitioner was reflected on the official website. 6. Though, in compliance of the order of this Court, the respondents filed a reply and additional affidavit stating that the date of counselling as well as the selection of the petitioner was reflected on the website, no document in support of the said contention has been filed. It has been stated that, as the matter is an old one, the relevant information has since been deleted from the website and the submission has been made on the basis of information received from the office of the respective respondent. 7. From the copy of the said newspaper placed on record, it appears that the same is the Edition of Raipur publication, whereas the petitioner resides at Ambikapur. Hence, the plea taken by the State that the said news was also published in Ambikapur Edition is not acceptable in absence of any document placed on record by the State in support thereof. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that the petitioner was deprived of appearing in the document verification due to lack of intimation. The respondents have failed to place any document showing that the petitioner was intimated by sending a text message, as 4 was done in the case of other candidates. Even the respondents have failed to produce anything showing that the said notification was published on the website of CGITI prior to the date of document verification. Hence, in absence of such proof by the State, it appears that the petitioner was deprived of participation in the counselling/document verification conducted from 21.10.2024 to 24.10.2024. 9. It is pertinent to mention that by order dated 15.4.2025 the respondents were directed to keep one post vacant. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the document verification/counselling for the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant) against the said vacant post, by giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and intimating her the specific date and place where she has to appear sufficiently in advance. Thereafter, the petitioner shall appear before the centre/place on a date given to her where the documents are to be verified and counselling is to be conducted. After verification of the documents, if the petitioner's candidature is found eligible in all respects for the said post, necessary action for her appointment be taken. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The petition is allowed to the above extent. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu