1 CGHC010397772023 2026:CGHC:41608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9357 of 2023 Deepak Kumar Verma S/o Shri Atma Ram Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o - LIC Colony Road, Pragari Nagar, Mowa, Post Saddu, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Employment And Training Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam) Through Its Secretary, Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2/State : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. AG, Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. GA and Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, PL. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (24th 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 order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner’s representation questioning rejection of his candidature for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) on the ground that though he selected option of PGDCA in the application form but did not produce certificate of the said course, has been rejected. 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, an OBC candidate, who possessed Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical Branch, submitted his application for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) and other Trades also. Though he successfully participated in the written examination and secured 39th position in the combined merit list of the candidates for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & 3 Engineering Drawing) vide Annexure P/7 and also appeared for the documents verifications, but the respondent authorities rejected his candidature on the ground that though he selected “PGDCA” option while submitting application form but did not produce the certificate thereof, which amounts to furnishing false information. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WPS No.7759/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2023 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No.2, however, by the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner’s representation has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner inadvertently mentioned in his application form “PGDCA” against Other Course but after qualifying in the written examination, he was called for documents verification by the respondent authorities for the post of Training Officer of Trade – Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing, and not for the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator and Programming Assistant). Since for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing), qualification of PGDCA was not required at all, therefore, even if the petitioner mentioned “PGDCA” in his application for against Other Course, that itself cannot be a ground for rejection of his candidature, particularly when he possesses all the requisite qualification including 4 experience for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) and secured 39th position in the combined merit list for the said post. 5. Respondents No.1 & 2/State have filed their reply. Learned counsel for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected on the ground that while submitting online application for, he opted for “PGDCA” course but did not produce certificate thereof. He submits that the petitioner is having qualification and experience for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) but he filled application form for the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator and Programming Assistant), for which the essential qualification is PGDCA, and the petitioner has no such qualification. This apart, Clause 3(iii) of the advertisement as well as the application form contain a specific condition that if any information given by the candidate is found to be incorrect at any stage, the candidature may summarily be terminated without any prior notice or information to the candidate. Since the petitioner while submitting online application form mentioned therein to have qualification of PGDCA but during documents verification, the said information furnished by him was found to be incorrect, therefore, his candidature has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities. Hence the instant petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, 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 application form of the petitioner (Annexure P/6), though he mentioned therein “PGDCA” against Other Course, but as per letter dated 18.8.2023 issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner was called for documents verification for his selection on the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing), for which, admittedly, the qualification of PGDCA was not at all required. Since the petitioner was not called for documents verification for the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant), therefore, rejection of his candidature for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing) only on the ground that he mentioned in his application for “PGDCA” against Other Course is not justified at all, particularly when the petitioner successfully qualified in the written examination and secured 39th position in the combined merit list for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing). 9. Though as per Clause 3(iii) of the advertisement (Annexure P/2) and the application form (Annexure P/6), it has been mentioned that if any information given by the candidate is found to be incorrect at any 6 stage, the candidature may summarily be terminated without any prior notice or information to the candidate, but the said condition cannot be read in isolation or applied mechanically, irrespective of the nature, context and relevance of the information furnished. The use of the expression “may” itself indicates that termination of candidature is not an inevitable or automatic consequence in every case where an incorrect entry is noticed. The power has to be exercised in a manner consistent with the purpose of the recruitment process and in relation to the post for which the candidate's candidature is being considered. After rejection of his candidature, the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.7759/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.10.2023 with a direction to file a representation before respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No.2 wherein he categorically stated that the said information was furnished inadvertently, however, by the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner’s representation has been rejected. Even if the said information furnished by the petitioner in the application form was found to be incorrect, the respondent authorities ought to have considered that such an incorrect information has no connection or relevance at all with the post applied for by the petitioner. Being so, this Court is of the considered opinion that rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & 7 Engineering Drawing) on the aforesaid ground is not at all legally sustainable. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Training Officer (Workshop Calculation & Engineering Drawing), after duly verifying his eligibility and all relevant documents, strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement. 11. If, upon such reconsideration, the petitioner is found eligible and otherwise entitled to appointment on the basis of his position in the selection process and subject to availability of the post, the respondents shall take consequential action in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be 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: 2026.09.28 14:13:32 +0530