1 2026:CGHC:19092 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4483 of 2018 1 - Bharti Shrivas D/o Shri Panchram Shrivas, Aged About 22 Years R/o Civil Line, Karhi Colony, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector (Land- Record Branch), Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Pooja Jaiswal D/o Shyam Jaiswal, Office Of The Collector (Land Record Branch), District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 25.04.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned list declaring the petitioner ineligible (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned select list (Annexure P/2). 2 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to select the petitioner for Patwari Training according to her merits. 10.4 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) Mr. Chandra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.10.2016, the petitioner participated in Patwari Recruitment Examination in the year 2017. He would contend that required eligibility criteria for the post of Patwari was : the Higher Secondary examination, knowledge of Computer(specifically Data Entry speed of 5000 key depressions per hour), or one year Diploma in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant or two years Diploma from a recognized Board of Technical Education in Computer Science/Information Technology/Modern Office Management or P.G. Diploma or Graduation or Post-Graduation in Computer Science/Information Technology/Computer applications. Mr. Chandra Kumar would submit that according to the advertisement, a candidate with one year Diploma in Computer Application was eligible for selection but the respondents rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill required eligibility criteria, thus, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the petitioner possessed one year Diploma in Computer Application and thus, she was lacking required eligibility criteria, therefore, her candidature was rejected. He would further submit that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 3 4) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) The required eligibility criteria prescribed for the post of Patwari in the advertisement reads as under : "5. पटवारी पद हे तु शै क्षणिक अहेतु :- (1) किसी मान्यता प्राप्ता माडल सी (10+2) प्राणाल मा हायर सी ण्डर परक्षा उत्तीणा हाना चाकिहाय। (2) शासीय/ अर्द्धशासीय य किसी मान्यता प्राप्ता सीस्था सी म्प्य$टर अहाता हाना चाकिहाय। (3) किसी मान्यता प्राप्ता सीस्था सी प्राग्रामिंमा(ग मा न्य$नातामा 01 वर्षी,य किडप्लमा / प्रामाणा पत्र ताथा डट एंट्री1  5000  (key) किडप्राशाना प्राकिताघंट  गकिता । कम्प्यूटरी अहेतु हे तु निम्निकतु क हे सामान्यू प्रशैसा निवाभाग क परिरीपत्र क्रमाक एफ-9-4/2015/1/3 दिदक 23.01.2015 क असारी मान्यूतु हे :- (1) मान्यता प्राप्ता आई.ट1. आई सी म्प्य$टर आपरटर एंण्ड प्राग्रामा असिसीस्टन्ट व्यवसीय मा एं वर्षी,य किडप्लमा/ सीर्टिट(कि9 ट । (2) मान्यता प्राप्ता बोड ऑ9 टक्नाल एंजु> शाना / रज्य ताना किवश्वकिवद्यालय द्वार प्रादाना किय गय म्प्य$टर सीईन्सी / इन्9माEशाना टFक्नालGजु / माडना आकि9सी माFनाजुमाट  किडप्लमा (2 वर्षी सी अन्य$ना) (3) वFधाकिना रूप सी गठिKता किसी मान्यता प्राप्ता किवश्वकिवद्यालय / डम्ड य$किनावर्सिसी(ट1/ इठिदार गधा मा>क्ता किवश्वकिवद्यालय / भोजु किवश्वकिवद्यालय द्वार प्रादात्ती म्प्य$टर सीईन्सी / इन्9माEशाना टFक्नालGजु / म्प्य$टर एंप्ल शाना मा प.जु. किडप्लमा अथाव स्नाता अथाव स्नात्त्तीर उपधिधा। (4) DOEACC Society New Delhi द्वार प्रादात्ती किवभिभोन्न किडप्लमा।" परन्ता> अधिधासी$सिचाता क्षात्र  सी9ल स्थानाय किनावसी अभ्यथा, जु पटवर पदा पर प्रासिशाक्षाणा हाता> चायकिनाता हाUग, उन्हा उक्ता म्प्य$टर सीबोधा प्रामाणा प्रास्ता>ता रना हाता> 01 वर्षी  छू$ट  पत्रता हाग।" 6) The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Arun Kumar Dhruv Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in Writ Apepal No.201 of 2018, decided on 26.07.2018 while dealing with the similar issue in paras, 5,6,7,8 & 9 held as under : “5. From a reading of the eligibility conditions reproduced in the earlier part of the order, it is evident that a minimum one year diploma is as valid as a post graduate diploma. The list is not exhaustive, but surely gives quite an insight into certification and certificates which could be obtained by a candidate from diverse kind of institutions or universities which would be valid for consideration for such appointment. 6.In our opinion, the list have to be read in a holistic manner and the insistence of the Respondents to demand or hold that these eligible candidates cannot 4 be selected on the ground that they do not have post graduation diploma, is misplaced. It is nobody's case that the University from which these Appellants have obtained one year diploma in computer application or programing is not recognized University. These are the Universities which have been setup in the State of Chhattisgarh under The Chhattisgarh Private Universities (Establishment and Operation) Act, 2005 and, therefore, to bring the case of these Appellants under Clause 5(3) of the notification of the General Administration Department dated 23.01.2015 would be doing violence to the language and the requirement. 7. In addition to that, counsel for the Appellants have brought on record a recent Notification dated 22.01.2018 which is Annexure-D/1. It is part of I.A. No.2 of 2018, wherein the General Administration Department, in relation to appointment on diverse posts have clarified that a one year diploma in computer application is equally valid for the purposes where computer knowledge is mandated for recruitment. This circular of the General Administration Department sheds light and is directed against one and all Departments which are involved in recruitment process. 8. In totality, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the reason for rejection of the claim of these Appellants for appointment on the ground that they did not possess PGDCA is not only irrational, but is also arbitrary and is in violence of the requirements laid down by the Respondents own advertisement, by misreading of the requirements. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ applications which are Writ Petition (S) No.4714 of 2017 and analogous cases are hereby set aside. A direction is issued upon the Respondents/the Collectors of the concerned Districts that the rejection of the candidature of these Appellants on the ground of lack of possession of PGDCA is uncalled for and unwarranted. Their cases for appointment be now considered on the basis of diploma in computer application which they have produced, subject to fulfilling other requirements.” 7) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the proposition of law laid down in the matter of Arun Kumar Dhruv(supra), this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of 5 the petitioner to make a detailed representation along with copy of this order before respondent No.1 within a period of 30 days from today and in turn, the said authority is directed to consider and decide it in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Arun Kumar Dhruv(supra) preferably within a further period of 60 days. 8) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is disposed of. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha