1 CGHC010382762023 2026:CGHC:42450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9140 of 2023 Deepesh Singh W/o. Vishwanath Singh Rathore, Aged About 37 Years R/o. Janhvy Niwas, Near Santoshi Temple, Shyam Nagar, Telibandha, P.O. - Ravigram, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Skill Development, Training And Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Skill Development, Training And Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director, Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director (Establishment), Training Wing, Employment And 2 Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Scrutiny Committee Directorate, Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - President Document Verification Committee, Raipur Zone, Office Of Joint Director, Saddu, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal Bhawan, Through Its Controller Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 6/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate. For Intervener : Mr. YC Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anjay Mishra, Advocate. 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 challenging the order dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 whereby representation 3 submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in WPS No.8108/2023 by this Court, has been rejected. The petitioner is also seeking direction to the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner and issue appointment order in her favour for the post of Training Officer (Sewing Technology). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.3/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 (Sewing Technology). 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 does not possess Craft Man Instructor Training Certificate (CITC) and her experience certificate was not issued by Engineering college/Polytechnic/ITI. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.8108/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.10.2023, thereby directing the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent authorities for redressal of her grievance, which, in turn, shall be considered and decided by them within four weeks in accordance with the relevant rules and law. Accordingly, the petitioner 4 submitted a representation, however, the same has been rejected by respondent No.3 by the impugned order. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that she has marked “Yes” in the CITC option while submitting her application but as she did not file CITC during counselling/documents verification, therefore, she is not entitled to get 10 bonus marks, and since merit list (Annexure P/7) has already been prepared, therefore, the same cannot be prepared afresh. He further submits that even if 10 bonus marks for CITC is deducted from the total 74 marks obtained by the petitioner, then also she will score 64 marks in the written examination and secure merit position. Hence, he prays that the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner after deducting 10 bonus marks for CITC. He further submits that the experience certificate (Annexure P/15) issued by the Apparel Training & Design Center shows that the petitioner is having teaching experience in the Trade “Sewing” from 12.7.2012 to 3.6.2020, despite that her experience certificate has not been accepted on the ground that it is not as per requirement of the advertisement/rules of the relevant Trade/Faculty, 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. 5. The State/respondents have filed their reply. Learned counsel for the State, referring to its reply, would submit that since the petitioner 5 marked “Yes” in the CITC option while filling up her application form, she was wrongly allotted 10 bonus marks for CITC. As she failed to produce such certificate, she is not entitled to get 10 bonus marks for CITC. Further, her candidature has also been rejected because her experience certificate is not issued by the recognized institutions rather it has been issued by a private entity. Being so, the instant petition lacks any substance and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7/VYAPAM, who is a formal party, and learned counsel appearing for the intervener, supported the contention raised by learned State counsel. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner wrongly marked “Yes” in CITC option whereas she has no such certificate. Therefore, the respondent authorities were fully justified in denying 10 bonus marks to the petitioner for CITC. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if this 10 bonus marks is deducted from the total marks obtained by the petitioner, then also she is entitled to be considered for the post in question. However, from perusal of the experience certificate (Annexure P/15) filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the same has been issued by The Apparel Training & Design Center. It has not been mentioned in the said certificate that it was issued by any recognized institution whereas Clause 20 of the 6 Instructions published in the official website http://vyapam.cgstate.gov.in , mandates that experience certificates issued by VTP or institutions other than Government and private ITIs/Engineering Colleges/Polytechnic Colleges, shall not be considered valid. In the instant case, the experience certificate (Annexure P/15) of the petitioner was issued by a private entity, therefore, it being not in accordance with the advertisement and the aforesaid instructions issued by the respondent authorities, the same was not accepted. This Court finds no arbitrariness or illegality in the action of the respondent authorities rejecting the petitioner’s candidature on the aforesaid grounds. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by respondent No.3. The petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in this petition. Accordingly, the instant petition being bereft of any substance is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 10. 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: 2026.10.01 14:35:44 +0530