DEEPAK KUMAR SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010271182025 2026:CGHC:45596
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6918 of 2025
Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Panchu Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o
Plot No.9, Maitri Kunj, Risali Sector, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Skill
Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, (Training Wing),
Block-4, First Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Chairman,
Vyapam Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Arpit Parakh on behalf of Mr.
Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
28/10/2026
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
to the respondent authorities to issue an appointment order in his
favour for the post of Training Officer, Workshop Calculation and
Engineering Drawing, at Government Industrial Training Institute,
Bhilai, as he was declared successful in the recruitment process
initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.05.2023 and its
subsequent amendment dated 13.05.2023.

2
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as stated in
paragraph 7 of the return filed by the respondents, the
candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the Document
Verification Committee vide order dated 06.09.2023, on the
ground that, during his tenure as a trainee in the concerned
institution/department, he was not receiving his salary through a
bank account or post office, as allegedly required under the
guidelines issued by the National Council for Vocational Training
(NCVT) dated 22.03.2021. Learned counsel further submits that
the aforesaid issue has already been considered and decided by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Yashashvi Pansari v. State
of Chhattisgarh and Others , along with connected matters, in
WPS No. 8069 of 2023. In the said case, the Coordinate Bench
directed the respondent authorities not to reject the candidature of
any petitioner merely on the ground of failure to produce a
document establishing the mode of payment of salary. The
authorities were further directed to complete the necessary
exercise within 60 days and issue appointment orders in favour of
eligible candidates within a further period of 15 days.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel attempts to justify the rejection
of the petitioner's candidature by submitting that the
advertisement itself prescribed a condition regarding the mode of
payment of salary. However, learned State counsel is unable to
controvert the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the
decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in WPS No. 8069 of

3
2023 has not been set aside or interfered with by any higher
forum.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. From the material available on record, it appears that the
petitioner was selected for the post of Training Officer, Workshop
Calculation and Engineering Drawing, at Government Industrial
Training Institute, Bhilai, pursuant to the recruitment process
initiated by the advertisement dated 05.05.2023, as amended on
13.05.2023. However, his candidature was rejected on the ground
that, while working as a trainee in the concerned
institution/department, he was not receiving his salary through a
bank account or post office, as required under the NCVT
guidelines dated 22.03.2021.
6. The issue involved in the present writ petition has already been
considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 8069
of 2023 and connected matters. In the said decision, the
Coordinate Bench specifically directed the respondent authorities
not to reject the candidature of the petitioners merely on the
ground that they had failed to produce documents regarding the
mode of payment of salary. The authorities were permitted to
undertake necessary verification and were directed to complete
the exercise within the stipulated period, followed by the issuance
of appointment orders to eligible candidates.
7. In view of the aforesaid decision, and in the absence of any
material to indicate that the said judgment has been set aside or

4
modified by a higher forum, this Court finds no reason to take a
view different from that taken by the Coordinate Bench, thus the
present writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent
authorities that the candidature of the petitioner shall not be
rejected on the ground that he 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 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.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
Jyoti