Chh HC | Will an advertisement for appointment mentioning Class Xth as minimum qualification be refused if the candidate has not passed class 5th and 8th individually? HC decides

Chattisgarh High Court: P. Sam Koshy J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order as it was bad in law.

The facts of the case are such that the challenge in the instant writ petition is the action on the part of the respondents declaring the petitioner ineligible for appointment to the post of Part-Time Sweeper on the ground that she has not passed 5th and 8th.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the advertisement does not reveal any minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Part-Time Sweeper whereas, in the very same advertisement for all other posts which were advertised the specific qualification or minimum eligibility criteria have been specifically reflected. It was further submitted that she has passed 10th examination under the Chhattisgarh State Open School Examination in the year, 2013 and as such for all practical purposes she is 10th pass. Therefore, declaring the petitioner to be ineligible is totally contrary and malafide and hence the impugned order liable to be set aside.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner in fact has not studied class 5th and 8th and has straightaway under the State Open School Education has participated in the 10th examination and it was for this reason that the authorities have taken a decision declaring the petitioner ineligible.

The Court observed that the advertisement itself did not prescribe any minimum eligibility criteria or qualification for being appointed to the post of Part Time Sweeper. It was further observed that the petitioner has cleared her 10^th examination under the Chhattisgarh State Open School Examination scheme and therefore for all practical purposes she is 10th pass candidate and hence the insistence of the respondents for having cleared 5th and 8th does not seem to be with any logical support, nor is it required under the advertisement or the recruitment process which were undertaken.

The court thus held that the action on the part of the respondents in declaring the petitioner ineligible is bad in law.

In view of the above, impugned order was quashed, petition allowed and disposed.[Sarojani Sona v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 760, decided on 24-11-2020]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together