1 / 7 2026:CGHC:4526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 818 of 2026 Naincy Singh D/o Late Roop Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o - D-5/ D-6, Line River View Colony, Koni Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The 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 C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel lawyer For Respondent no. 3 : Ms. Akansha Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 27/01/2026 1. With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is heard finally at admission stage. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.01.30 15:24:34 +0530 2 / 7 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 06.05.2023 had submitted an application for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Welder) as a General Category (Female) candidate. Along with the application, petitioner has also submitted experience certificate issued by Khattu Ji Institute for training of trainers on 29.03.2023. After submission of application form petitioner was issued admission card for appearing in the written examination. Petitioner became successful in written examination and was issued call letter, however, experience certificate submitted by petitioner was not considered to be in accordance with law. He also submits that reason for not accepting the experience certificate issued by the said institute is only on the ground that petitioner was not able to prove payment for his engagement with said institute. He further submits that petitioner was paid honorarium in cash to institute, therefore, he was unable to place on record any documentary evidence with respect to payment. He lastly submits that many candidates on same ground have approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions which came to be decided on 13.11.2024 in writ petition bearing WPS No. 8609 of 2023 (Yashashvi Pansari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and batch of writ petitions passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the petitions and further directed that the candidature of any of petitioner shall not be rejected on the ground that they fail to place on record any document with regard to mode of payment of salary. The case of petitioner is squarely covered with the decision of Yashashvi Pansari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, therefore, this writ petition shall also be allowed at the admission stage. 3 / 7 3. Learned counsel for State do not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner about the order passed in similar facts. He submits that in batch of writ petitions Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the similar issue has allowed the writ petitions in favor of petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that main contesting party of this writ petition is respondent no. 1 and 2. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his claim has submitted the copy of decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 8069/2023 and batch of other petitions. Relevant portion is extracted below for ready reference:- 2. The facts of the case are as follows:- Respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement on 05.05.2023 for recruitment to the post of Training Officers in 23 streams. The petitioners submitted their application forms as they had the requisite qualifications for the advertised posts. Thereafter, the petitioners participated in the written examination. The result was declared and the petitioners were in the list of successful candidates. The petitioners were called for verification of the documents and the list of required documents was also appended to the call letters. The petitioners appeared before the respondent authorities for verification of the documents. Despite verification of documents, the respondent authorities have not issued appointment orders in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners failed to submit documents pertaining to the mode of payment of salary. It is also stated in the order impugned that according to one of the clauses of guidelines of NCVT, the 18 engaged instructors or trainees should be paid their remuneration/salary only through banks/post offices. It is further stated that the petitioners failed to place on 4 / 7 record any document with regard to the requirement as stated in the Management Manual for Industrial Training Institutes. 3. Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate would argue that the condition given in the Management Manual is directory in nature. He would further submit that the object of the instruction is to bring transparency and uniformity in the system. He would contend that to ensure that the trainees get their salary regularly and also on time, this system has been adopted by the NCVT. He would further contend that there is no such provision in the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non- Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 (for short the Rules of 2014’) and such condition was not incorporated in the advertisement. It is also contended that the Rules of 2014 were amended in the year 2019 and there is no whisper with regard to the requirement as observed by the respondent authorities while rejecting the candidature of the petitioners. Mr. Shrivastava would further argue that the petitioners are eligible, qualified and they have been selected by the Recruitment Agency but on account of trivial issues, the appointment orders have not been issued yet. Mr. Shrivastava would also argue that the candidature of each and every petitioner was inquired into by the respondent authorities and there is no adverse report against any of the petitioners. He would further state that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps for the issuance of appointment orders in favour of eligible candidates. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kale, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shrivastava. Mr. Kale would submit that some of the candidates have worked in other States and to ascertain their credibility, it was necessary on the part of those petitioners to submit documents with regard to the mode of payment of salary. He would further contend that according to the application form, the petitioners were required to submit documents showing the mode of payment of salary, experience certificate, order of appointment etc. He would also contend that the petitioners failed to place on record those documents. He would argue that for transparency and fairness, this decision was taken by the Recruitment Agency. He would fairly admit the fact that there is no such provision either in the Rules of 2014 or 5 / 7 2019 or in the advertisement. He would contend that the respondent authorities after due scrutiny rejected the candidature of the petitioners. It is contended by Mr. Kale that technical education is the subject of the concurrent list and Rules have been framed by the Union of India and the same is being followed by the State. 5. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General appearing for Union of India would support the contentions made by Mr. Kale. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners participated in the recruitment process for the posts of Training Officers pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioners were found successful. The petitioners were called for verification of the documents and they were asked to submit documents with regard to their educational qualification, experience, affidavit and salary paid to them but there was no requirement to submit documents with regard to mode of payment of salary. In the advertisement also, there is no such condition. As per the application form, the candidates were required to submit an experience certificate, salary details, appointment order etc. 8. The NCVT issued instructions in the Management Manual for Industrial Trainee Institutes and one of the clauses deals with Payment of Salary to Vocational Instructors of ITIs/ITCs(Regular/Contract basis) through banks/post offices only. 9. The instruction/recommendation is reproduced herein below:- “It was brought to the notice of DGET that some of the ITIs/ITCs are paying very meager salary to instructors appointed on contract basis. As a result, good quality instructors were not attracted to these jobs. Therefore, to bring further transparency and uniformity in the system, it was proposed (in 39th meeting of the Council held on 12th January, 2011) that all instructors(regular/contract basis) engaged in ITIs/ITCs should be paid their remunerations only through banks/post offices. This system should ensure that recommended salaries are 6 / 7 paid to these instructors regularly and also on time.” 10. The language of above referred guideline would make it clear that it was issued to bring transparency and uniformity to the recruitment process. One of the objectives was to ensure the payment of recommended salaries regularly on time. As this condition is not mentioned either in the recruitment Rules or in the advertisement, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this instruction / recommendation was directory in nature and its non- compliance will not lead to the rejection of the candidature of any of the candidates. 11. If any of the application forms were found doubtful or incomplete, the recruitment agency or the respondents ought to have conducted an inquiry to ascertain the veracity of entries made in the application form. It is informed that in some of the cases, inquires were conducted and reports are not against the petitioners. In most of the cases, the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they were not getting salary in cash. 12. In the first round of litigation, the petitioners were permitted to make a representation before the respondent authorities. Respondent No. 2 rejected the representations of the petitioners assigning one reason that the petitioners were not getting salary either through bank accounts or post office. The reasons assigned by respondent No. 2 while rejecting the representations of the petitioners are not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the same is contrary to the services Rules and conditions enumerated in the advertisement, therefore, the orders passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected are hereby quashed. 13. The respondent authorities are granted 30 days to scrutinize the candidature of the petitioners of this batch with regard to their suitability. The candidature of any of the petitioners shall not be rejected on the ground that they failed to place on record any document with regard to the mode of payment of salary. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to inquire into other criteria, if necessary. There is no need for further inquiry, particularly in the cases where inquiry has already been conducted by the respondent authorities. The entire exercise shall be completed by 7 / 7 the respondent authorities within a period of 60 days and thereafter, the respondents are directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners/eligible candidates within a period of 15 days. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case and in the opinion of this Court the grievances raised by petitioner in this writ petition appears to be of similar facts and issue raised is covered with the decision in case of Yashashvi Pansari (supra) decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this court. I am in agreement with the view taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the order passed in Yashashvi Pansari Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and batch of writ petitions vide order dated 13.11.2024. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is also allowed. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza