RITESH DHIDHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 6

CGHC010347652026 2026:CGHC:39292
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
SHARMA
Date:
2026.09.09
12:22:06
+0530
JYOTI
SHARMA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6582 of 2026
Ritesh Dhidhi S/o Shri Kumar Singh Dhidhi Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village - Banskanta Post- Deori Block- Bagbahara District -
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
Housing And Environment Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar
District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Chhattisgrh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary
Shankar Nagar Road Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
3. Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Through Its Registrar Academic
Council Amanaka Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate
For Respondents/
State
: Mr. Shahil Singh, P.L.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
08/09/2026
1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 07/2025/Exam dated
24.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 for direct recruitment to
the post of Assistant Director (Planning) and had successfully
qualified the written examination. However, at the stage of
document verification, his candidature was rejected on the ground

2 / 6
that the nomenclature of his Master's Degree differed from the
qualification prescribed in the advertisement, and consequently he
was denied participation in the interview. Learned counsel submits
that thereafter the petitioner approached respondent No. 3, Pt.
Ravishankar Shukla University, which is the competent academic
authority, and the Academic Council of the University, vide
Resolution dated 28.07.2026, issued an Equivalence Certificate
certifying that the petitioner's degree is equivalent to the
qualification prescribed in the advertisement and that the course
contents for the relevant academic sessions are identical. It is
further submitted that although the final selection list has already
been published, no appointment orders have yet been issued to
the selected candidates. The petitioner does not challenge the
merit or selection of any candidate and confines his claim to
consideration of his own candidature on the basis of the
equivalence certificate issued by the competent academic
authority. Learned counsel, placing reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmikant Sharma v. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2025 INSC 1385 , submits that due
deference ought to be given to the determination of equivalence
made by the competent academic authority. It is, therefore,
prayed that the impugned rejection slip be quashed and the
respondents be directed to accept the equivalence certificate and
permit the petitioner to participate in a special interview and
consider his candidature for appointment in accordance with law.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the PSC opposes the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the

3 / 6
advertisement dated 31.12.2025 specifically prescribed the
requisite educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director
(Planning) i.e. / / / /
नियोजन सिटी प्लानिंग शहरी नियोजन हाउसिंग कंट्री
/ / / /
प्लानिंग ग्रामीणनियोजन अधोसंरचनानियोकनियोजन परिवहननियोजन पर्यावरण
. He further submits that Clause 5 of the Important Tips
नियोजन
appended to the advertisement categorically required every
candidate, before submitting the online application, to satisfy
himself/herself as to his/her eligibility with regard to the prescribed
educational qualification, experience and age and no documents
will be considered after the last date. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner was aware of the qualification
prescribed in the advertisement and, nevertheless, his
candidature was found deficient at the stage of document
verification. It is submitted that the equivalence certificate relied
upon by the petitioner was obtained and submitted by way of
representation only on 28.07.2026, whereas the interview had
already been conducted and the final selection list had been
published on 12.05.2026. Thus, the equivalence certificate having
been produced after conclusion of the selection process, the
same cannot be taken into consideration at this belated stage so
as to reopen or alter the selection process already concluded.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with the petition.
4. It is not in dispute that the advertisement prescribed the requisite
educational qualification for the post of Assistant Director
(Planning), namely, a Master's Degree in / /
नियोजन सिटीप्लानिंग शहरी
/ / / / /
नियोजन हाउसिंग कंट्री प्लानिंग ग्रामीण नियोजन अधोसंरचना नियोजन परिवहन

4 / 6
/ . The advertisement also specifically
नियोजन पर्यावरण नियोजन
required the candidates, under Clause 5 of the Important Tips, to
ascertain their eligibility with regard to the prescribed educational
qualification, experience and age before submitting their online
applications. I also specifies that no documents will be considered
after last date of submission of application form.
5. In the present case, the petitioner's candidature was rejected at
the stage of document verification as the nomenclature of the
Master's Degree possessed by him did not correspond with the
qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioner
thereafter approached respondent No. 3-University, and the
Academic Council, vide Resolution dated 28.07.2026, issued an
equivalence certificate certifying that the degree possessed by the
petitioner is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the
advertisement.
6. However, the said equivalence certificate was admittedly issued
only on 28.07.2026 and was submitted by the petitioner by way of
representation thereafter. By that time, the interview had already
been conducted and the final selection list had been published on
12.05.2026. Thus, the equivalence of the petitioner's degree was
not established before the recruiting authority at the stage when
his eligibility was required to be considered in terms of the
advertisement.
7. In the opinion of this Court, merely because the competent
academic authority has subsequently certified the equivalence of
the petitioner's degree, the same cannot, in the facts of the

5 / 6
present case, be permitted to retrospectively cure the deficiency
in his candidature after conclusion of the selection process. If the
petitioner intended to claim his degree as equivalent to the
qualification prescribed in the advertisement, such equivalence
ought to have been established and the requisite certificate ought
to have been produced at the time of submission of the
application or, at the latest, at the stage of document verification,
so that the recruiting authority could have considered his eligibility
along with other candidates participating in the selection process.
8. The fact that no appointment orders may have been issued to the
selected candidates does not, by itself, confer a right upon the
petitioner to reopen a selection process which has already
culminated in publication of the final selection list. The petitioner
seeks, in substance, a special interview on the basis of a
certificate which came into existence after the entire selection
process had been substantially concluded. Granting such relief
would amount to permitting the petitioner to participate in the
selection process on the basis of a qualification/equivalence
established at a stage subsequent to that prescribed under the
advertisement.
9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon
Laxmikant Sharma (supra) is also of no assistance to the
petitioner. The said decision cannot be applied to the peculiar
facts of the present case where the equivalence certificate relied
upon by the petitioner was issued only after the interview had
been conducted and the final selection list had already been
published. The issue here is not as to whether the competent

6 / 6
academic authority is entitled to determine equivalence, but
whether such determination, made subsequent to the conclusion
of the selection process, can be relied upon to reopen the process
and grant the petitioner a special opportunity to participate
therein. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same cannot
be permitted.
10. Consequently, the subsequent equivalence certificate dated
28.07.2026 cannot be made the basis for quashing the rejection
of the petitioner's candidature or for directing the respondents to
conduct a special interview. The petitioner was required to
establish his eligibility in accordance with the terms of the
advertisement at the relevant stage of the selection process and
cannot claim a right to participate therein on the basis of an
equivalence certificate obtained after publication of the final
selection list.
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Jyoti