Chattisgarh High Court
Sushil Kumar Khutte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 November, 2024
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1 / 23
2024:CGHC:44786
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8207 of 2018
Order Reserved on : 09.09.2024
Order Delivered on : 18.11.2024
• Chandra Kumar Yadav S/o Chhattar Singh Yadav Aged About 27
Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted At Government Iti,
Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. R/o Village
Chhuchipali, Post Patelpali, Tahsil And District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planing, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Technical Education Employment And Training Indrawati
Bhawan, Block 3 And 4, First Third And Fourth Floors, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Industrial Training Institute Koni, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 8050 of 2018
• Dharna Sahu W/o Shri Ved Prakash Sahu Aged About 32 Years
Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Computer Operator And
Programme Assistant (Copa), Iti, Badikareli, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh, R/o Iti Campus, Badikareli, Post Badikareli, Tahsil
Magarlod, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
2 / 23
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planning, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post
Office And Police Station Naya Raipur , District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Technical Education, Employment And Training Indrawati
Bhawan, Block 3-4, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office
And Police Station Naya Raipur , District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Dhamatari
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
WPS No. 8373 of 2018
• Prashanna Kumar Pandey S/o Brajendra Nandan Pandey Aged
About 35 Years R/o Head Post Office, Hardi (Jarve), Tehsil Akaltara,
District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planning, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh\
2. Director, Technical Education, Employment And Training, Indrawati
Bhawan, Block 3 And 4, First, Third And Fourth Floors, Atal Nagar,
Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Industrial Training Institute, Chirmiri, District Korea
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 8424 of 2018
• Jyotsna Sahare D/o Mansingh Sahare Aged About 44 Years
Occupation Service, Presently Posted At Government Iti, Tilda,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, R/o Village Daihan, P.O. Taraud, Tehsil
- Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planning Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 / 23
2. Director, Technical Education, Employment And Training, Indrawati
Bhawan, Block 3 And 4, First, Third And Fourth Floors, Naya
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Industrial Training Institute, Koni, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 8426 of 2018
• Jayant Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Singh Sahu Aged About 40 Years
Occupation Service, Presently Posted At Government Iti, Nari,
District Dhamtari, R/o Gunjiyabor Post Palari, Tahsil Gurur And
District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planning, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post
Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Technical Education, Employment And Block 3-4,
Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station
Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 8377 of 2018
• Sushil Kumar Khutte S/o Chhotte Lal Khutte, Aged About 34 Years
Occupation Service, Presently Posted At Government Iti, Kartala,
District Korba, R/o Post Misda, Tahsil Nawagarh, And District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planning, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Technical Education, Employment And Training Indrawati
Bhawan, Block 3 And 4, First, Third And Fourth Floors, Atal Nagar,
Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Kartala, District Korba
Chhattisgarh
4 / 23
---- Respondents
WPS No. 8 of 2019
• Sanjay Kumar Sarthi S/o Ram Kumar Sarthi Aged About 31 Years
Occupation Service, Presently Posted At Government Iti, Surajpur,
District Surajpur, R/o Village And Post Kotra, Tahsil Guru, And
District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planning, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post
Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Technical Education, Employment And Training, Indrawati
Bhawan, Block 3-4, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office
And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Industrial Traning Institute, Surajpur, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 8365 of 2018
1. Smt. Tripti Verma W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Verma Aged About 30
Years Presently Posted As Training Officer (Diesel Mechanic)
Government Industrial Training Institute, Pulgaon, Durg, District
Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
2. Tupati Pagare D/o Krishna Pagare Aged About 34 Years Presently
Posted At Government Iti, Pendri , District Rajnandgaon, R/o
Station Para, Ward No. 13, Shita Gali, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3. Bhanumati Thakur D/o Govindram Thakur Aged About 35 Years
Presently Posted At Government Iti, Magarlod, District Dhamtari,
R/o Camp -1, Teendarshan Mandir, G.E. Road, Saksharta Chowk,
Nandu Auto Repair Shop, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District
: Durg, Chhattisgarh
4. Sita Bharti D/o Kailashpuri Goswami, Aged About 30 Years
Presently Posted At Government Iti, Berla, District Bemetara, R/o
Qtr. No. 2, Iti Campus, Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioners
Versus
5 / 23
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planning, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Technical Education, Employment And Training, Indrawati
Bhawan, Block 3 And 4 First, Third And Fourth Floor, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Shri Vivek Acharya Director, Technical Education, Employment And
Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Block 3 And 4 First, Third And Fourth
Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 8400 of 2018
• Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Ful Chand Sahu Aged About 36 Years
Occupation Service, Presently Posted At Government Iti, Khamariya
(Seepat), District Bilapsur, R/o Gunjiyabor Post Hasoud, Via Bira,
And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Manpower Planning, Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar
Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Technical Education, Employment And Training, Indrawati
Bhavan, Block 3 And 4, First, Third And Fourth Floors, Atal Nagar,
Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Principal Industrial Training Institute, Khamariya (Seepat), District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 13 of 2021
1. Chandra Kumar Yadav S/o Chhattar Singh Yadav Aged About 32
Years R/o Government Model I.T.I. Koni Bilaspur, Tahsil And District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2. Sanjay Kumar Sarathi S/o Ramkumar Sarathi Aged About 32 Years
R/o Village Parri, Post Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Fulchand Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Khamhariya Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 / 23
4. Sushil Kumar Khutte S/o Chhote Lal Khuttee Aged About 34 Years
R/o Govt. Iti Kartala Tahsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
5. Jayant Kumar Sahu S/o Arjun Singh Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o
Village Post Palari, Tahsil Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh,
District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
6. Anurag Kumar Tiwari S/o Ram Kumar Tiwari Aged About 40 Years
R/o Miti Campus Q. No. T.30/4, Koni Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Fo
Manpower Planning, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Technical Education, Employment And Training Indrawati
Bhawan Block 3 And 4, First Third And Fourth Floor, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastav, Sr. Advocate alongwith
Mr. Saurabh Sahu and Mr. Uttam Pandey, Mr.
Anand Mohan Tiwari, and Mr. Vikash Kumar
Bajpai, Advocate
For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
(CAV Order)
1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in the bunch of
writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of
by this common order.
2. In these petitions WP(S) No. 8207/2018, WP(S) No. 8365/2018,
WP(S) No. 8373/2018, WP(S) No. 8377/2018, WP(S) No.
8400/2018, WP(S) No. 8424/2018, WP(S) No. 8426/2018, WP(S)
No. 8/2019 the reliefs sought by the petitioners are common in
nature as they have prayed for quashing of the order dated
7 / 23
11.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authority by
which the petitioners' representations for completion of probation
period have been rejected on account of non-passing of CTI/ATI or 5
years service after POT. The petitioners have also prayed for
quashing of the memo dated 14.11.2018 (Annexure P/2) passed by
the respondent authority by which the respondents have directed the
petitioners to submit true copy of License of Light Motor Vehicle as
per the direction of this Court passed on 09.10.2017 and also prayed
that they may be sent for ATI/CTI training alongwith the batch which
has been sent vide order dated 14.11.2017.
3. The petitioner No. 1 who is petitioner in WP(S) No. 8207/2018,
petitioner No. 2 who is petitioner in WP(S) No. 8/2019, petitioner No.
2 who is petitioner in WP(S) No. 8400/2018, petitioner No. 4 who is
petitioner in WP(S) No. 8377/2018, petitioner No. 5 who is petitioner
in WP(S) No. 8426/2018 have filed WP(S) No. 13/2021 and prayed
for direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation
(Annexure P/5) dated 22.06.2020 which has not been decided by the
respondents. The petitioners have contended that even after
completion of 5 years service and completion of CTI/ATI training their
probation period have not been completed. The petitioner No. 6 has
filed writ petition for same reliefs.
4. For convenience, the facts of WPS No. 8207/2018 are being treated
as lead case.
Facts of the case:-
A. The State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has framed Chhattisgarh 8 / 23 Industrial Training (Non-gazatted Service Recruitment) Rules for appointment of various posts as prescribed in Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III of the Rules, the Schedule III provides for appointment of Training Officer Grade-III in various vocational courses like electronics, draftsman mechanics and civil/supervisor/radio/television, drawing/ mathematics/stenography/ social studies/ hostel superintendent/ stenography-3/stenographer/ assistant compounder/dresser and other trades and vocational courses to impart training in respective vocational courses by the Industrial Training Institutes. The said rules were amended on 15.04.2010 and qualifications in training officers Driver-Cum- Mechanic/Motor Mechanic/Diesel Mechanic/ Tractor Mechanic has been amended as under:-
S. Name of the Age Limit Educational Qualification No. service or post Minimum Maximum 9 Training Officer 18 year 35 year 1. From recognized board (Driver Cum High School or Old 11th with Science or equivalent Mechanic/ examination pass.
Motor 2.Degree/Diploma in
Mechanical/Automobile Engg.
Mechanic/ Or equivalent from recognized
Diesel University/Board or NTC/NAC
or equivalent in related trade.
Mechanic/ 3. Possesses certificate under
Tractor Craft Instructor in case if he
not trained from ATI/CTI, it is
Mechanic essential him to pass the
training examination within a
period of three years from the
date of appointment.
4. License of LMV.
B. The respondent/State issued an advertisement on 01.09.2010 for appointment of Training Officers in various trades including Driver Cum Mechanic, Mechanic Diesel, Mechanic Motor Vehicle and Computer Operator and Programming. The qualification for the post 9 / 23 of Driver Cum Mechanic, Mechanic Diesel and Mechanic Motor Vehicle is as under:-
"ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky;@cksMZ ls esdsfudy@vkWVkseksckby bathfu;fjax ;k mlds lerqY; esa mikf/k@i=ksikf/k ¼fMIyksek½ ;k lacaf/kr O;olk; esa vf[ky Hkkjrh; nLrdkjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gks ¼vky bafM;k ØkIV~lesau lafVZfQdsV ,Dtkfeus'ku½ ;k ,u-,-lh- ;k mlds led{k ijh{kk mRRkh.kZ gksA""
C. The petitioners have applied for appointment on the basis of advertisement dated 01.09.2010. Last date of submission of form was 30.09.2010. The petitioners have submitted their forms before last date of submission of form. Later on a corrigendum (Annexure P/4) to the advertisement dated 01.09.2010 was issued by the respondents on 25.09.2010 in which additional condition is imposed for the candidates who have applied for the posts mentioned at serial No. 7, 21 and 22, the candidates must posses the driving license.
D. Thereafter, the respondents as per the note sheet (Annexure P/5) and corrigendum issued on 01.09.2010 (Annexure P/4) have taken a decision to allow the candidates who is not possessing the LMV license for interview subject to condition that at the time of appointment they will produce permanent driving license. The interviews were initiated and petitioners were called for interview. The details of date of interview, date of driving license and date of appointments are given in table form as under:-
S. Name of the Petitioners Date of Date of Date of No. Interview issuance of appointment permanent Driving License 1 Chandra Kumar Yadav 26.10.2012 24.12.2012 10.01.2013 2 Sanjay Kumar Sarthi 26.10.2012 23.11.2012 02.05.2013 3 Suresh Kumar Sahu 26.10.2012 09.05.2012 10.01.2013 10 / 23 4 Jayant Kumar Sahu 26.10.2012 11.04.2011 10.01.2013 5 Prasanna Kumar 26.10.2012 08.02.2011 10.01.2013 Pandey 6 Tripti Verma 26.10.2012 26.10.2012 10.01.2023 7 Tupati Pagare 26.10.2012 19.10.2012 10.01.2013 8 Bhanumati Thakur 26.10.2012 08.10.2012 10.01.2013 9 Sita Bharti 26.10.2012 19.10.2012 10.01.2013 10 Sushil Kumar Khutte 26.10.2012 13.01.2011 10.01.2013 11 Jyotsna Sahare 26.10.2012 30.11.2012 10.01.2013 12 Anurag Kumar Tiwari 26.10.2012 -- 02.05.2013 E. Thereafter, the respondents have issued notice dated 18.11.2015 indicating why the services of the petitioners may not be terminated as the learning driving license was issued after advertisement and at the time of advertisement they were not having permanent driving license which is essential qualification for appointment on the post of Training Officer, as such they were not qualified for appointment.
The petitioners have assailed this notice before this Court which is registered as WP(S) No. 4805/2015 and other connected cases. This Court vide order dated 09.10.2017 has disposed of the petitions by observing as under:
"11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the show cause notice dated 28.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2 - Director, Technical Education holding that the petitioners were ineligible for the post of Training Officer, is liable to be and is hereby quashed. However, it is open to respondent No. 2 to proceed in accordance with law after following the due procedure of law."
F. The respondents have sent 509 Training Officers who have been appointed alongwith the petitioners for CTI/ATI training out of the State excluding the petitioners vide its order dated 14.11.2017. 11 / 23
therefore, petitioners have filed Writ Petition(S) No. 4050/2018 before this Court and this Court has disposed of the writ petition vide its order dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure P/3) by directing the petitioners to file individual representations within 15 days from the date of order for their claim of confirmation in the service before the respondent No. 2 Director, Employment and Training, New Raipur Chhattisgarh and in turn respondent No. 2 will decide the representations if so received, within 3 months from the date of such representations. In pursuance of direction given by this Court the petitioners have preferred individual representations which have been rejected on 11.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) and their prayer for completion of probation period has also been rejected vide order dated 14.11.2018 (Annexure P/2). Hence these petitions have been filed for quashing of the (Annexure P/1), (Annexure P/2) and directed the respondent to issue order regarding completion of their probation period.
G. Thereafter, this Court vide interim order dated 12.12.2018 has directed the respondents not to cancel the appointment order only on the issue of driving license as the said issue seems to have been settled by the order of this Court dated 09.10.2017.
5. The State has filed their return wherein they have not disputed the fact that a corrigendum was issued on 25.10.2010 by inserting the clause that the candidates must have license to drive Light Motor Vehicle for the posts mentioned in serial No. 7, 21 and 22. It has been further contended by the State that the petitioners have only learning driving license on the last date of submission of form, but at the time of joining they have obtained permanent driving license. This 12 / 23 factual matrix has been revealed after an inquiry conducted by the Lok Aayog Chhattisgarh, accordingly, a recommendation was made by Lok Aayog Chhattisgarh regarding initiating disciplinary action against Mr. A.K. Soni, Joint Director and the then Director of the Department alongwith other officials. It has also been found that 30 persons have been found ineligible for the appointment on the count that they have not having driving license on the last date of submission of form, but they have been included in the selection process which is illegality, therefore, the government has taken a decision to cancel their appointment order. Accordingly, notice dated 28.11.2015 was issued to the petitioners to submit explanation to it, which has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court in various litigations. The petitioners are still working on the said posts. It has been further contended that the petitioners were ineligible to be appointed still they have been appointed which is illegality from the very beginning and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. It has been further contended that since the petitioners have not completed 3 months principle of teaching course conducted by Director General, Employment and Training, as such they are not entitled to get increment and promotion. Thus, the action of respondents in not considering the case of probation period, grant of annual increment and promotion is legal and justified, as such the impugned order dated 14.11.2018 (Anneuxre P/2) is not liable to be interfered by this Court and would pray for rejection of this petitions claiming the reliefs for grant of these benefits. 13 / 23
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the writ petitions.
8. The facts are not in dispute that the Recruitment Rules, 2005 were amended on 15.04.2010 before issuance of advertisement by the State Government according to which the candidates who intend to seek appointment on the post of Training Officer for vocational courses namely Driver Cum Mechanic, Diesel Mechanic, Mechanic Motor Vehicles should have possessed license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle, as such this condition is essential qualification, but on account of corrigendum issued by the State, they have been allowed to participate in the selection process and they have been selected and appointed. Later on in the inquiry conducted by the Lok Aayog it was found that their appointments are not in accordance with the Rules, as such the decision taken by the State Government for issuance of show cause notice to terminate the services cannot be said to be found faulty.
9. But this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2013 and they have worked for more than 11 years, their families have been settled on the basis of the emoluments which they are getting by way of salary, therefore, at this juncture it will be too harsh for the petitioners and their family members to direct the respondents to take action against the petitioners for removal and unseated them as this stage would be contrary to the public interest as the petitioners have worked for 11 years and they have earned significance experience in their respective fields and imparted the teaching to the ITI students as Training Officers, as such if the petitioners are removed and in their 14 / 23 place new persons are appointed it will be loss to the public as the students will be deprived from getting knowledge from experienced Training Officer.
10. Even it is not the case of the State that the petitioners were involved in issuance of corrigendum or they have committed fraud to secure the appointment. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact though the petitioners were not having the qualification on the last date of submission of form, but before joining they have valid Light Motor Vehicle driving license, as such they have fulfilled the eligibility criteria before joining in service. In similar situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered these difficulties faced by the petitioners who are judges of fast track court at Kerala and have worked for merely 6 years and their appointments have been protected. The 5 Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, (2024) 3 SCC 799 has held that:-
"E. Conclusions
57. The following are our conclusions in view of the above discussions:
57.1 The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being termed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14; 57.2 An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation has to establish the following: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation;
and that (ii) the denial of the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14;
57.3 A public authority must objectively demonstrate by placing relevant material before the court that its decision was in the public interest to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation;
15 / 2357.4 The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) of the 1961 Rules.
57.5 The High Court's decision to apply the minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
57.6 In terms of relief, we hold that it would be contrary to the public interest to direct the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service after the lapse of more than six years. Candidates who have been selected nearly six years ago cannot be unseated. They were all qualified and have been serving the district judiciary of the state. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest. To induct the petitioners would be to bring in new candidates in preference to those who are holding judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the state and its citizens of the benefit of these experienced judicial officers at a senior position would not be in public interest."
11. Similarly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vivek Kaisth vs. State of H.P. reported in (2024) 2 SCC 269 has held in paragraph 44 which reads as under:
"44. What is also important for our consideration at this stage is that the appellants in the present case have been working as judicial officers now for nearly 10 years. They are now Civil Judge (Senior Division). These judicial officers now have a rich experience of 10 years of judicial service behind them. Therefore, unseating the present appellants from their posts would not be in public interest. Ordinarily, these factors as we have referred above, would not matter, once the very appointment is held to be wrong. But we also cannot fail to consider that the appellants were appointed from the list of candidates who had successfully passed the written examination and viva voce and they were in the merit list. Secondly, it is nobody's case that the appellants have been appointed by way of favouritism, nepotism or due to any act which can even remotely be called as "blameworthy". Finally, they have now been working as Judges for ten years. There is hence a special equity which leans in favour of the appellants."
12. Similarly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anmol Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2021) 5 SCC 424 has held in paragraph 10 and 11 which reads as under:
16 / 23
"10. On behalf of the writ petitioners, it was argued that though the selections initially were made on the basis of preference to the 3 categories of posts that were advertised. It was later found that the select list should have been prepared on the basis of merit and thereafter, preference has to be taken into account. Having realised the mistake that was committed, the authorities revised the select list pursuant to which the appointment of the writ petitioners was cancelled. By the time a decision was taken to revise the select list and cancel their appointments the writ petitioners had completed their training and had worked for a considerable period of time. According to them, the High Court correctly granted relief to the writ petitioners by taking into account the fact that they were not responsible for the irregularities committed in the preparation of the initial select list.
11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the writ petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the writ petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the writ petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the writ petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh case [Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 100] , where this Court considered that the appellants therein were appointed due to an error committed by the respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the writ petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case [Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 100] , we are in agreement with the High Court that the writ petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of contempt, the writ petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present."17 / 23
13. Now reverting back to the facts of these cases and the law referred above, it is quite vivid that though the petitioners not having requisite qualification on the last date of submission of form, but they have fulfilled the qualification before joining, obtained 11 years experience and except that the petitioners were not having the driving license at the time of submission of form, there is no other impediment to allow the petitioners to remain in service, as such there will no justifiable reason for this Court in not directing the State to confirm the petitioners on their posts after completion of probation period of 2 years from the date of joining subjected to fulfill other conditions stipulated in the Recruitment Rules for confirmation, if the Rules provide that before confirmation the petitioners are required to undergone training should have possessed Craft Instructor Certificate then the petitioners will be sent to Central Training Institute/Advanced Training Institute for obtaining certificate of Craft Instructor from that institute within 3 months from the date of order of this Court or first scheduled date for admission in these training institutions whichever is earlier.
14. Consequentially the writ petitions are partly allowed and the order dated 11.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) by which it has been recommended that their probation period is not completed, and the notice dated 14.11.2018 (Annexure P/2) are quashed and the appointments of the petitioners are protected, it is directed that the petitioners will be sent to Central Training Institute/Advanced Training Institute for obtaining certificate of Craft Instructor from that institute within 3 months from the date of order of this Court or first scheduled date for admission in these training institutions whichever is earlier. 18 / 23 The respondents are further directed that if the candidates cleared the CTI/ATI certificate course, then within further 3 months they will consider the case of the petitioners for confirmation. If the petitioners found fit for confirmation then their probation period will be completed and they will be declared confirmed employee of the department, will be given the permissible benefits which an Instructor are entitled to get after completion of probation period, but they will be placed below in the seniority list of the candidates who have been appointed with the petitioners having requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Training Officer from very beginning i.e. before the last date of submission of form.
15. It is further clarified that this Court has not examined the validity of the recommendation made by the Lok Aayog Chhattisgarh regarding initiation of departmental enquiry against the officers, this issue is left open and will be decided in appropriate proceedings initiated by the aggrieved persons if they so desire. It is further clarified that directions given by this Court regarding the appointment of the petitioners will not have any diluting effect over the action taken upon by the State against the erring officers as alleged by the State and will be continued without being influenced from direction passed by this Court in the present bunch of writ petitions.
16. In WP(S) No. 8050/2018, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 11.10.2018 by which his application for completion of probation period has been rejected.
Facts of the case:-
19 / 23
A. The petitioner in the same recruitment process applied for appointment on the post of Training Officer Computer Operator and Programming Assistant which is at serial No. 2 of the advertisement.
The qualification for appointment on the said post as per the advertisement is the candidate should have possessed degree/diploma or equivalent in computer science or BCA/PGDCA or equivalent and he should cleared examination from All India Craftsman Certificate Examination or he should cleared NAC examination or he should have O level certificate from Department of Electronics Government of India.
B. The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that she is willing to go for ATI/CTI training, but the respondents are not allowing her to join the training though she fulfills all the criteria for appointment as she has already requested the principal of the ITI Dhamtari for providing permanent NTC Certificate. The same has been replied on 20.03.2015 stating that the NTC Certificate has not been provided by the Secretary State Board of examination Raipur for the candidates who have passed the examination in Computer Operator and Programming Assistant in the academic session 2007-08. It has also been contended that the State Board of Examination has provided temporary NTC Certificate to the petitioner. Thus, she cannot be held responsible for not having permanent NTC certificate. It has been further contended that the State of Chhattisgarh has amended the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India namely Chhattisgarh ITI (Non-gazetted) Class - 3 Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 and the qualification for appointment on the post of Computer Operator and Programming 20 / 23 Assistant has been modified on 21.05.2019 and following amendments have been in the qualifications:
15 izf'k{k.k vf/kdkjh &rnSo& &rnSo& ¼1½ ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ls gkbZ Ldwy ¼dEI;wVj vFkok iqjkuh i)fr ls 11 oha vFkok vkWijsVj ,oa lerqY; ijh{kk mRRkh.kZ izksxzkfeax vflLVsaV ¼2½ vH;FkhZ] lacaf/kr VªsM esa jk"Vªh;
dksik½ O;olk; izek.ki=@jk"Vªh; f'k{kqrk izf'k{k.k ifj"kn~ ls jk"Vªh; f'k{kqrk izek.ki=@jkT; O;kolkf;d izf'k{k.k ifj"kn~ ls jkT; O;olk; izek.ki= ,oa jk"Vªh; f'k{kqrk izf'k{k.k ifj"kn~ jk"Vªh; f'k{kqrk izek.ki=@ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ;k cksMZ ls dEI;wVj lkbZal bathfu;fjax ;k lerqY; ladk;
esa mikf/k@i=ksikf/k mRrh.kZ vFkok MhvksbZ ¼MhvksbZ,lhlh½ ls ^^,^^ Lrj dk izek.ki= ;k fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky;@cksMZ ls chlh,@ihthMhlh,A ¼3½ vuqHko %& mikf/k /kkfj;ksa ds fy, % lacaf/kr {ks= ds O;olk;@ladk;
esa ,d o"kZ dks 'kS{kf.kd vuqHko i=ksikf/k /kkfj;ksa ds fy, % lacaf/kr {ks= ds O;olk;@ladk; esa nks o"kZ dk 'kS{kf.kd vuqHko jk"Vªh; O;olk;
izek.ki=@jk"Vªh; f'k{kqrk izek.ki=@jkT; O;olk; izek.ki= ,oa jk"Vªh; f'k{kqrk izek.ki= /kkfj;ksa ds fy, % lacaf/kr {ks= ds O;olk; esa rhu o"kZ dk 'kS{kf.kd vuqHko ¼4½ vf/keku %& vH;FkhZ] tks MhthVh ds mPp izf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa ls ¼,-Vh-vkbZ- @lh-Vh-vkbZ-@,u-Ogh-Vh-vkbZ-@vkj-Ogh- Vh-vkbZ@vkbZ-VkWV½ ls mRrh.kZ gks] dks p;u ds nkSjku vfrfjDr 10 vad fn;k tk;sxkA
17. The State has filed their return mainly contending that the respondents have issued show cause notice dated 28.11.2015 wherein she was directed to submit her reply with respect to provisional NTC Certificate issued by the institution which has not been recognized/affiliated from the Directorate of Training, therefore, the said certificate is illegal, accordingly a show cause notice was issued. It has also been contended that the petitioner's record was subjected to inquiry by the Lok Aayog wherein it has been found that 21 / 23 16 candidates were having provisional NTC Certificate (NCVT) but no Recognition Certificate of the unit has been issued by DGET still they have been included in the NCVT examination and provisional NTC certificate has been issued, as such her appointment was illegal.
18. Now reverting back to the facts of this case and considering the fact that the petitioner has already worked for nearly 11 years and initially she was not having permanent NTC Certificate, as such she was not having requisite qualification as per the rules at the time of joining of the service, but later on the rules have been amended on 21.05.2019 wherein the certificate of the State Trade Training Council has also been recognized and the State Trade Training Council has not issued the permanent certificate to the petitioner despite persuasion made by petitioner as evident from memo dated 20.03.2015 issued by the Superintendent ITI Dhamtari. The respondents have also not denied this factual matrix by filing reply to the rejoinder, as such the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not having the certificate, obtained 11 years experience and except that the petitioner was not having the certificate at the time of submission of form. As such, unseating the petitioner after lapse of 11 years will be very difficult not only for the petitioner but for her entire family and there is no other impediment to allow the petitioner to remain in service.
Considering this peculiar situation of the case and also considering that there is no justifiable reason for this Court in not directing the State to confirm the petitioner in the post after completion of probation period which is 2 years from the date of joining and subjected to fulfill other conditions provided in the Recruitment Rules 22 / 23 for confirmation. If the Rules provide that before confirmation the petitioners are required to undergone training should have possessed Craft Instructor Certificate then the petitioners will be sent to Central Training Institute/Advanced Training Institute for obtaining certificate of Craft Instructor from that institute within 3 months from the date of order of this Court or first scheduled date for admission in these training institutions whichever is earlier. The respondents are further directed that if the candidate cleared the CTI/ATI certificate course then after further 3 months they will consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation. If the petitioner found fit for confirmation then her probation period will be completed and order of confirmation will be issued in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner will be given the permissible benefits which Instructor are entitled to get after completion of probation period, but she will be placed below in the seniority list of the candidates who have been appointed with the petitioner having requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Training Officer from very beginning i.e. before the last date of submission of form.
19. Consequentially the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 11.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) by which it has been recommended that her probation period is not completed is quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to issue permanent National Trade Certificate in favour of the petitioner after due inquiry and verification of the records pertaining to issuance of temporary NTC Certificate annexed with the writ petition within 3 months from the date of this order.
20. It is further clarified that this Court has not examined the validity of the recommendation made by the Lok Aayog Chhattisgarh regarding 23 / 23 initiation of departmental enquiry against the officers, this issue is left open and will be decided in appropriate proceedings initiated by the aggrieved persons if they so desire. It is further clarified that directions given by this Court regarding the appointment of the petitioners will not have any diluting effect over the action taken upon by the State against the erring officers as alleged by the State and will be continued without being influenced from direction passed by this Court in the present bunch of writ petitions.
21. With aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions are allowed in part as per directions given in paragraph 14, 18 and 19 of the order.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish