Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Kumar Sen vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 August, 2023
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:21016-DB
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 317 of 2023
Devendra Kumar Sen, S/o D.R. Sen, Aged about 46 years, R/o
HIG - 55, Q. No. 103, Sector-29, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur
(C.G.0
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of
Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Indravati Bhawan, Forth Floor
B-Block, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 318 of 2023
Savitri Luxmi Chandrakar, W/o Dr. Gajendra Baghel, aged about 47
years, R/o Behind Balaji Hospital, Beside Verma Villa, Dubey
Colony, Mowa, P.S. - Mowa, District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of
Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Indravati Bhawan, Forth Floor
B-Block, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 319 of 2023
Jageshwar Prasad Sahu, S/o Late Shri I.R. Sahu, aged about 46
years, R/o House No. P2B/245, Near Krishna Public School
International, Sec-27, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of
Fisheries, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Indravati Bhawan, Forth Floor
B-Block, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:21016-DB
2
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyaya, Adv.
For State/Respondent : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. Advocate General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri . Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi , Judge Order on Board Per N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge 16.08.2023
1. All these three writ appeals arise from common order dated 18.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS Nos. 2667 of 2014, 2668 of 2014 & 2669 of 2014, respectively, hence, they are heard analogously and decided by this common order. [For the sake of convenience, W.A. No. 317 of 2023 arises from WPS No. 2667 of 2014 would be taken-up as lead case ]
2. The instant writ appeals have been preferred by the appellants for the following reliefs:-
"(i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2023, delivered by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to allow the Writ Petition WP (S) - 2668/2014 (it should be WPS No. 2667 of 2014) and grant the relief claim by the petitioner.
Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 3
(iii) Direct the respondents to appoint the Appellant / Petition to the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer.
(iv) Cost of this Appeal be awarded to the Appellant.
(v) Any other relief, order/orders, direction/directions and writ/writs as may be deemed fit by the Honb'le Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Heard Mr. Garry Mukhopadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the State/Respondents.
4. Facts of the case, as projected by the appellants, are that pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No. 2- Director, Directorate of Fisheries for appointment on the posts of Assistant Fisheries Officer and Fisheries Inspector, the appellants, who are petitioners in aforesaid respective writ petitions, filed applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer, as they were having degree of M.Sc. (Zoology) with specialization in Fish and Fisheries, they have also annexed their Mark-Sheets to this effect, thus, they are having requisite qualification for appointment on the aforesaid posts. Appellant - Devendra Kumar Sen in WP (S) No. 2667/2014, Jageshwar Prasad Sahu in WP (S) No. 2668/2014 are working in the office of respondent authorities on the post of Fisheries Inspector whereas petitioner - Savitri Luxmi Chandrakar in WP (S) No. 2669/2014 is having degree of M.Sc. (Zoology). The essential eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer, for which the appellants Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 4 applied, was M.F.Sc. (Masters in Fisheries Science) from any recognized university or post graduate [M.Sc. (Zoology)] from any recognized University with specialization in Fish and Fisheries and trained in fisheries course from any institution governed by the Central Government or State Government. After scrutiny of the applications, respondent authorities prepared a list (Annexure P-1) showing the candidates to be eligible and non-eligible, wherein name of appellants have been shown to be non-eligible candidates. Finding their names in non-eligible candidates list, they moved an application / objection stating inter alia that they possessed all the requisite qualifications alongwith required training also in accordance with terms & conditions of the advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer, despite that respondent authorities vide impugned letter dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure P-2), rejected the objection of the petitioners on the ground that, Department of Agriculture (Fish Farming) Govt. of Chhattisgarh vide Memo No. F 9-1/36/Est./05, dated 31.08.2005 has granted permission to impart training of Assistant Fisheries Officers at Departmental Training Institute, Raipur, but the petitioners received training in the year 1999-2000 at the Fisheries Inspector level, hence, the petitioners preferred respective writ petitions.
5. Learned Single Judge, after hearing learned counsel the parties, vide impugned order dated 18.04.2023, dismissed all the writ Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 5 petitions filed by the appellants, petitioners therein, holding in para 11, 12 & 13 as under :-
"11. It is clear from the advertisement (Annexure P/5) and Rule (Annexure P/8) that the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer is M.Sc. (Zoology) with specialty in fish and fisheries from any recognized university. All the petitioners have filed their mark list of M.Sc. ( Zoology) which do not show the subject of fish and fisheries. As per respondent authorities, the essential qualification for the post of Assistant Fisheries Officers is M.Sc. (Zoology) from any recognized University with specializatin and training in fisheries course from the institution governed by Central or State Government. All the petitioners do not fulfill the requisite criteria i.e. M.Sc. (Zoology) with specialization in fish and fisheries and traning in fisheries course from the Institution governed by the Central or State Government. All the petitioners are possessing only M.Sc. (Zoology), therefore, their candidature for the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer has duly been rejected and their names have been placed in the list of ineligible candidates. That apart, from the gazette notification (Schedule - III), it is clear that the petitioners are not having M.Sc. (Zoology) degree with fish and fisheries subject. Further, the letter dated 30.05.2014 Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 6 (Annexure P-2) whereby the objection of the petitioners stood rejected clearly speaks about the essential qualification i.e. Master Degree in Zoology with specialization in Fisheries and training in fisheries course from any institute governed by the Central or State government. Further the advertisment (Annexure P/5) issued by the respondent authorities clearly mention that M.Sc. (Zoology) fish and fisheries is the essential criteria for the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer, for which he petitioners have applied. Thus, it can safely be inferred from the above that though the petitioners possess degree of M.Sc. (Zoology) but the same is not in speciality in fish and fisheries.
"12. The aforesaid petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the ground that criteria was M.F.Sc. From any recognized university or passed post graduate (M.Sc. Zoology) from any recognized university with specialization in Fish and Fisheries but it is clear from the advertisement that M.Sc. Zoology in Fisheries is essential qualification for this post. Therefore, the respondent authorities rejected the objection of the petitioners, which cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.
13. In the result, the aforesaid petitions being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed and are hereby Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 7 dismissed."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ petitioners would submit that as per advertisement (Annexure P-5), the appellants are having requisite qualification i.e. M.Sc. (Zoology) with specialization in Fish & Fisheries, which is evident from their mark
- sheets Annexure P-3, Annexure P-2 & AnnexureP-2, respectively, as one of the subject in their M.Sc. (Zoology) is Ichhthiology. It is further submitted that the appellants also underwent training in fisheries course from Fisheries Training Institute, Raipur, which is recognized institute and duly permitted by Government of Chhattisgarh, copy of Certificate in this regard as Anneuxre A-4, Annnexure A-3 & Annexure A-3, respectively, have also been filed by the appellants, despite that their names were placed in the list of ineligible candidates stating therein that they do not underwent requisite training in fisheries course and they received training of Fisheries Inspector level only, but in the advertisement there was no specification that alleged training must have been of the level of Assistant Fisheries officer, therefore, they have wrongly been placed in list of ineligible candidates. It is further contended that the respondents/State authorities has not refuted their pleadings that they are having requisite qualification i.e. M.Sc. (Zoology) with specialization in fish and fisheries, which is evident from their reply of paragraph 8.2 & 8.3 of the petition, despite that learned Single Judge has dismissed their petitions holding therein that the Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 8 appellants possessed degree of M.Sc. (Zoology), and the same is not in specialty in fish and fisheries, which is perverse and contrary to the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, whereas, mark- sheets of the appellants specifically show that they have done their M.Sc. Degree in which, one of the subject is Ichhthiology (eRL; foKku½. It is lastly submitted that appellants have also underwent training from recognized institution by Govt. of Chhattisgarh , they have also filed certificate in this regard, which has wrongly been denied by respondent authorities. Hence, it is prayed that appeals may be allowed and the relief may be granted to the appellants.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/State would submit that name of the appellants were not placed in the list of ineligible candidates on the ground that they were not having requisite education qualification, rather their names were placed in the list of ineligible candidates, as they were not having required documents with regard to training in Fisheries Course from the recognized Institution, as the documents filed by them in this regard (with regard to their training) were found to be of Inspector level because, Departmental Training Institution, Raipur has granted permission to impart training of Assistant Fisheries Officers vide memo dated 31.08.2005 issued by Department of Agriculture (Fish Farming), Govt. of Chhattisgarh, but petitioners were received training in the year 1999-2000, that too, of level of Fisheries Inspector. It is further submitted that the respondent Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 9 authorities have not denied educational qualification of the appellants, which is evident from their reply, paragraph 9, wherein it has been specifically stated that contention raised by the appellants in paragraphs 8.2 & 8.3 of their writ petitions with regard to their qualifications are not disputed. It is further submitted by learned State Counsel that the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge does not call for any interference in the instant appeals. Learned counsel for the State further submits that subject recruitment process was of the year 2014 and other candidates, whose names find place in the list of eligible candidates, have not been made party in the instant case, hence, after passing of such long period, no relief can be granted to the appellants without impleading them party in the instant case. Hence, the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. It is apparent from the record that pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure P-5) issued by respondent No. 2 for appointment on the posts of Assistant Fisheries Officer and Fisheries Inspector, appellants applied for their appointment on the post of Assistant Fisheries Officer. As per advertisement (Annexure P-5), qualification sought for aforesaid posts is "M.F.Sc. (Master in Fisheries Science) from any recognized university or post graduate in [M.Sc. (Zoology)] from any recognized University with Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 10 specialization in Fish & Fisheries and trained in Fisheries Course from any institution governed by Central Government or State Government".
10. The appellants have stated in their petitions filed before the learned Single Judge that they are having degree of M.Sc. (Zoology) with specialization in fish & fisheries, which is also evident from their mark-sheets of M.Sc. Final year, which shows that one of the subject in their M.Sc. (Zoology) is Ichhthiology (erL; foKku), thus, it is apparent that appellants are not having degree only in M.Sc. (Zoology), but they have also done M.Sc. (Zoology) along with specialization in fish & fisheries, as one of their subject in M.Sc. (Zoology).
11. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the respondents have refuted pleadings of appellants that, they are not having requisite qualification nor their candidature has been kept in non- eligible list on that ground, rather their names were kept in aforesaid list on the ground that they have not received requisite training i.e. in Fisheries Course. Hence, in view of above, we find that learned Single Judge has wrongly held in the impugned order that the appellants did not possess degree of M.Sc. (Zoology) having specialty in fish & fisheries.
12. In view of above discussion, we held that appellants are having requisite educational qualification for getting their names in the eligibility list to be appointed on the post of Assistant Fisheries Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 11 Officer.
13. So far as rejection of application filed by the appellants vide Annexure P-2 i.e. not having requisite training in Fisheries Course is concerned, in aforesaid Memo (Annexure P-2 dated 30.05.2014), respondent No. 2 himself has stated that the appellants have received training of level of Fisheries Inspector in the year 1999-2000. Although, as per respondent No. 2- Departmental Training Institute, Raipur has granted permission for training of Assistant Fisheries Officers vide memo dated 31.8.2005 issued by Department of Agriculture (Fish Farming), Govt. of Chhattisgarh. But no such terms/conditions have been mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure P-5), that aspirational candidates must have got training of Assistant Fisheries Officers, rather in the advertisement (Anneuxure P-5), training has been sought for only Fisheries Course from the Institution run by Central Government or State Government; and as per (Annexure P-4), in all three petitions, petitioners have gone through training in Inlands Fish Cultue Training Course from Fisheries Training Institute, Raipur, which is found to be institution of Govt. of Chhattisgarh and on this, they have been issued Training Certificate (Annexure P-4) by Deputy Director of Fisheries, Raipur. Since, there is no stipulation in Advertisement (Annexure P-5), as has been stated earlier that training in level of Assistant Fisheries Officer has not been sought from in the advertisement and the petitioners have went through in Neutral Citation 2023:CGHC:21016-DB 12 training, which is said to be level of Fisheries Inspector by respondent No. 2, therefore, we are also of the considered view that the appellants are having requisite training also, as has been sought for in the advertisement. Thus, in sum & substance, we held that the appellants are having requisite qualification and training also, therefore, placing their names in non-eligible list by respondent -authorities are found to illegal and unjustified.
14. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge for consideration afresh in the petitions with regard to the relief sought for by the appellants/petitioners.
15. The writ appeals are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Dubey/-