1 CGHC010370962023 2026:CGHC:42450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8996 of 2023 Indu Verma D/o Ashok Kumar Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 157, Mahamaya Mandir Chownk, Thelki, Balodabazar District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, 493332 ... 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 Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. DR Minj, Dy. Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (29th 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 seeking quashment of Annexure P/1 issued by 2 the respondents whereby candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of she having less experience in the concerned Trade as required 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 submitted her application for the post of Training Officer (Electrician). Though she successfully participated in the written examination, secured position in the merit list and also appeared during documents verification. However, after documents verification, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she has less than one year’s experience in the concerned Trade as per requirement in the advertisement. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner possesses decree of B.Tech. (Electrical & Electronics Engineering). She secured position in the combined merit list of the concerned Trade (Annexure P/6). She had also filed experience certificate (Annexure P/8) issued by the office of Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Bhatapara which clearly demonstrates that she performed teaching work there as Part Time Lecturer (Electrical) from 17.3.2021 to 29.12.2022 and from 30.12.2022 to 25.5.2023 i.e. for a total period 3 of 22 months, despite that her candidature has been rejected. He further submits that in the Instructions dated 12.5.2023 (Annexure P/11) issued by the Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Raipur, to all the Joint 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. He submits that as per Memo dated 7.10.2023 (Annexure P/9) issued by the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Bhatapara to DVC Officer, the petitioner has performed teaching in the concerned Trade as Part Time Lecturer for a total 906 hours. Annexure P/11 i.e. Instructions relate to teaching of Guest Lecturers and not of Part Time Lecturers performing teaching work in government colleges/institutes, therefore, experience of the petitioner, who was a Part Time Lecturer in Govt. Polytechnic, ought ought to have been treated sufficient and as per requirement of the advertisement. However, the respondent authorities have rejected her candidature on the ground of she having less experience than what was required in the advertisement, which is completely arbitrary and illegal. Hence the instant petition may be allowed and the relief sought for by the petitioner be granted to her. 4 5. The State/respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed its reply. Learned counsel for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that the experience certificate (Annexure P/8) submitted by the petitioner shows that she performed teaching work as Part Time Lecturer in Govt. Polytechnic, Bhatapara from 17.3.2021 to 29.12.2022 and from 30.12.2022 to 25.5.2023 and as per Annexure P/9 i.e. Memo issued by the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Bhatapara to DVC Officer, the petitioner has teaching experience in the concerned Trade of only 906 hours as a Part Time Lecturer. As per the advertisement, a candidate having degree in the concerned Trade/Faculty should have one year teaching experience in the relevant Trade/Branch, for which he/she has applied. Referring to Instructions (Annexure P/11) issued by respondent No.2, which are in furtherance of the recruitment rules and the advertisement, 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 is having teaching experience in the concerned Trade/Faculty only for 906 hours, therefore, her candidature has rightly been rejected for not possessing the requisite experience. The instant petition being devoid of any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The table appended in Clause 6(2) of the advertisement (Annexure P/2) deals with educational qualification, which reads as under: क्र. पदनाम विवि त शैक्षणिक अ त ए अनाभ 2. प्रशिक्षण अधिका री, इलेक्ट्रिशियन (1) मा न्यता प्र प्ता बोर्ड से हा ई स्का! ले अथवा सेमाता$ल्य अथवा पु$री न पुद्धतिता से 11 वा) पुरीक्ष उत्तीण. (2) अभ्यथ-, से.बो.धिता र्ड मा/ री ष्ट्रीय व्यवासे धियका प्रशिक्षण पुरिरीषद्5 से री ष्ट्रीय व्यवासे य प्रमा ण पुत्र/ री ष्ट्रीय शिक्ष$ता प्रशिक्षण पुरिरीषद्5 से री ष्ट्रीय शिक्ष$ता प्रमा ण पुत्र/ री ज्य व्यवासे धियका प्रशिक्षण पुरिरीषद्5 से री ज्य व्यवासे य प्रमा ण पुत्र एवा. री ष्ट्रीय शिक्ष$ता प्रशिक्षण पुरिरीषद्5 से री ष्ट्रीय शिक्ष$ता प्रमा ण पुत्र/ मा न्यता प्र प्ता तिवाश्वतिवाद्या लेय य बोर्ड से इलेक्ट्रिकाले इ.जीतिनयरिंरी=ग य सेमाता$ल्य से.का य मा/ उपु धि/ पुत्रपु धि उत्तीण. (3) अनाभ :- ( विनार्धारित प्रारूप म प्रास्तत अनाभ प्राम पत्र मन्य "गे$) उपधिर्धार्धारिय" क$ धि'ए( से.बो.धिता क्षत्र का व्यवासे य/ से.का य मा/ एका वाष का ?क्षणिणका अन$भवा पत्र)पधिर्धार्धारिय" क$ धि'ए: से.बो.धिता क्षत्र का व्यवासे य/ से.का य मा/ द् वाष का ?क्षणिणका अन$भवा री ष्ट्रीय व्यवासे य प्रमा ण पुत्र/ री ष्ट्रीय शिक्ष$ता प्रमा ण पुत्र/ री ज्य व्यवासे य प्रमा ण पुत्र एवा. री ष्ट्रीय शिक्ष$ता प्रशिक्षण पुरिरीषद्5 से री ष्ट्रीय शिक्ष$ता 6 प्रमा ण पुत्र रिरीयB का शिलेए: से.बो.धिता क्षत्र का व्यवासे य मा/ तान वाष का ?क्षणिणका अन$भवा (4) अधिर्धामना(- अभ्यथ-, जी र्डजीटीD का उच्च प्रशिक्षण से.स्था नB से (ए.टीD.आई./ से.टीD.आई./एन.व्हा.टीD.आई./आरी.व्हा.टीD.आई./ आई.टीIटी) उत्तीण हा, का चयन का द्Kरी न अतितारिरीता 10 अ.का दिद्य जी यग । 7.1 Perusal of the requirement of aforesaid educational qualification and experience, shows that the candidates having degree are required to possess teaching experience in the concerned Trade/Faculty of one year; the candidates having diploma certificates are required to possess two years teaching experience whereas the candidates having certificates from ITIs are required to possess three years teaching experience in the relevant field of Trade. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has not pleaded in her petition as to what qualification she possesses whether she is degree holder, diploma holder or ITI certificate holder. When experience is required as per educational qualification of a candidate, then the petitioner ought to have necessarily pleaded in the petition about her educational qualification. During the course of submission, when a specific question was posed to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has pleaded anywhere in the petition about educational qualification of the petitioner, he could not demonstrate any such pleading in the petition. 7 9. So far as experience part is concerned, Annexure P/8 is the experience certificate of the petitioner issued by the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Bhatapara. Annexure P/9 is the Memo dated 7.10.2023 issued by the said Principal to DVC Officer wherein it is stated that the petitioner has only 906 hours of teaching experience as Part Time Lecturer (Electrical) whereas Annexure P/11 i.e. Instructions issued by the Director, Directorate of Employment and Training to all the Joint Directors (Training) of ITIS, it has been specifically mentioned 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. Being so, since the petitioner has 906 hours of teaching experience, the same cannot be considered as one year’s teaching experience in light of the aforesaid Instructions (Annexure P/11). 10. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure P/11 is issued in respect of counting experience of Guest Lecturers whereas the petitioner worked as Part Time Lecturer in Govt. Polytechnic, Bhatapara, therefore, the said Instructions are not applicable to her case, this contention is not acceptable as duty of Guest Lecturer or Part Time Lecturer is temporary and they are paid honorarium on hourly basis and as such, status of both of them is alike. 8 11. Thus, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has neither pleaded in the writ petition about her educational qualification nor filed any such document to show her educational qualification, which was essential for the purpose of calculating the requisite experience as per the advertisement and further, as per the experience certificate (Annexure P/8) filed by her if seen in light of the Memo dated 7.10.2023 issued by the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Bhatapara to DVC Officer and the Instructions (Annexure P/8), she does not have the minimum teaching experience of one year in the concerned Trade/Faculty, this Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in rejection of the petitioner’s candidature by the respondent authorities on the ground of her having less experience in the concerned Trade/Faculty. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned Annexure P/1 whereby petitioner’s candidature for the post of Training Officer (Electrician) has been rejected. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. 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: 2026.10.03 10:15:14 +0530