{"id":185479,"date":"2005-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005"},"modified":"2018-06-04T16:25:51","modified_gmt":"2018-06-04T10:55:51","slug":"rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service &#8230; on 5 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service &#8230; on 5 January, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR         \n\n     Writ Petition No. 4944 of 2004\n\n     Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal, Bilaspur (C.G.)\n                                        ....Petitioner\n                      -Versus-\n     Chhattisgarh Public Service Commisson\n                                        ....Respondent<\/pre>\n<p>!     Smt. Hamida Siddque, Counse for the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>^     Shri Prashant Mishr, Additional Advocate General<br \/>\n      for the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>     HON&#8217;BLE SHRI L.C.BHADOO. J.   <\/p>\n<pre>\n\n     Dated: 05\/01\/2005\n\n:     Judgment\n      05-01-2005\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>     Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the petitioner.<br \/>\n     Shri  Prashant Mishra, Additional Advocate General<br \/>\nfor the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rejoinder  has  been  filed  on  behalf   of   the<br \/>\npetitioner.  As the pleadings are complete,  therefore,<br \/>\nit was decided to dispose of this matter finally at the<br \/>\nadmission stage itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>     By  this writ petition filed under Article 226\/227<br \/>\nof   the  Constitution  of  India  the  petitioner  has<br \/>\nquestioned  the legality, propriety and correctness  of<br \/>\nthe  order  dated 7-12-2004 (Annexure-P\/1) whereby  the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s application for appearing in the interview<br \/>\nfor  the  post of Deputy Director has been rejected  by<br \/>\nrespondent No.1, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission<br \/>\non  the ground that the petitioner does not possess the<br \/>\nrequisite experience as per the eligibility criteria.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Brief  facts  leading  to  filing  of  this   writ<br \/>\npetition  are that on a requisition received  from  the<br \/>\nDepartment  of  Education respondent No.1  herein  vide<br \/>\nAnnexure-P\/2  invited the applications for  filling  up<br \/>\nthe  vacancies in the Education Department to the posts<br \/>\nof  Deputy  Director  (Education),  D.I.E.T.  (District<br \/>\nInstitute   of  Educational  Training)  Principal   and<br \/>\nLecturers  (Education College Cadre).  In  response  to<br \/>\nthe  said advertisement the petitioner herein also sent<br \/>\nan   application  for  the  post  of  Deputy  Director.<br \/>\nHowever,    his    application   was   rejected    vide<br \/>\ncommunication  Annexure-P\/1  sent  by  respondent  No.1<br \/>\nPublic  Service  Commission  on  the  ground  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner does not possess the requisite experience.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  controversy involved in this  matter  is  the<br \/>\ninterpretation   of   the  eligibility   criteria   for<br \/>\nappearing  in  the  interview for the  post  of  Deputy<br \/>\nDirector.  English translation of that reads thus: `(i)<br \/>\nfor  the  post  of Deputy Director the  candidate  must<br \/>\npossess  2nd  class  post  graduation  decree  of   any<br \/>\nrecognized University&#8217; and in the experience clause  it<br \/>\nhas been mentioned that (ii) the candidate must have 10<br \/>\nyears  teaching experience of Higher Secondary  Classes<br \/>\nand minimum 3 years administrative experience.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The case of the petitioner is that as far as first<br \/>\ncriteria  is  concerned,  the  petitioner  possess  the<br \/>\nexperience of teaching of Higher Secondary Classes  and<br \/>\ncertificate to that effect is Annexure-P\/4 and the same<br \/>\nhas   not  been  made  ground  for  rejection  of   the<br \/>\napplication  of the petitioner.  Further  case  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner is that in the year 1996 he was selected  as<br \/>\nGrade-II  i.e.  Chief Municipal Officer by  the  Public<br \/>\nService  Commission and since March, 1996 he is working<br \/>\non  that post.  Presently, he is working on the post of<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Raipur, therefore, as<br \/>\nper  the advertisement inviting applications he possess<br \/>\nthe requisite experience.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Whereas, reply of the respondent No.1 is  that  in<br \/>\norder  to  become  eligible  for  the  post  of  Deputy<br \/>\nDirector   the  candidate  must  possess  3  years   of<br \/>\nadministrative experience in the field of Education and<br \/>\nnot in other departments, which was the requirement  of<br \/>\nthe  notification dated 9-7-2003.  The post  of  Deputy<br \/>\nDirector (Education) is a post of administrative nature<br \/>\ncontrolling    and   coordinating   various    teaching<br \/>\ninstitutions at the Primary, High and Higher  Secondary<br \/>\nlevel,  therefore, any other administrative  experience<br \/>\nof  any other department cannot be considered to be  an<br \/>\nadministrative  experience  for  the  post  of   Deputy<br \/>\nDirector  (Education).  Accordingly, a requisition  was<br \/>\nsent   by   the  Deputy  Director  Public  Instructions<br \/>\nChhattisgarh   to   the   Public   Service   Commission<br \/>\nrequesting the Public Service Commission to recruit the<br \/>\ncandidate  for the post of Deputy Director  (Education)<br \/>\nvide Annexure-R\/1.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Further  case  of  the respondents  is  that  even<br \/>\naccording  to  Schedule 3 of the M.P. School  Education<br \/>\nGazetted Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules,  1982<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred  to  as  `the  Rules&#8217;)   minimum<br \/>\nqualification   for   the  post  of   Deputy   Director<br \/>\n(Education)  is  Post  graduate  degree  (minimum  IInd<br \/>\nDivision)   Arts,  Commerce,  Science   or   equivalent<br \/>\nqualification.  10 years experience administration  and<br \/>\nteaching at the Higher Secondary School level of  which<br \/>\nat least 3 years must be on the administrative side.\n<\/p>\n<p>     I have heard learned counsel for the parties.<br \/>\n     Learned  counsel for the petitioner, while placing<br \/>\nreliance  on the judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court  in<br \/>\nthe  matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/1328185\/\">Bibhudatta Mohanty V. Union of India and<br \/>\nothers<\/a> reported in 2002 AIR SCW 1379, submitted that in<br \/>\nthe  advertisement\/notification  issued  by  respondent<br \/>\nNo.1  Public  Service Commission it  has  nowhere  been<br \/>\nmentioned that the administrative experience must be in<br \/>\nthe  field  of education.  It has simply been mentioned<br \/>\nin  the  eligibility criteria that the  candidate  must<br \/>\npossess  minimum 3 years of administrative  experience.<br \/>\nWhile  elaborating her arguments, she further submitted<br \/>\nthat  if  we look into the same advertisement  for  the<br \/>\nposts   of   D.I.E.T.  and  Lecturers   it   has   been<br \/>\nspecifically    mentioned   that   the   administrative<br \/>\nexperience  must  be in the field of education  and  no<br \/>\nsuch  specific criteria was published for the  post  of<br \/>\nDeputy  Director (Education), therefore, it has  to  be<br \/>\ninterpreted  by  reading the condition published  in  a<br \/>\nsimple  manner and a plain meaning should be  given  to<br \/>\nthe  condition  published  in  the  advertisement.   It<br \/>\ncannot  be read otherwise and no casus omissus  can  be<br \/>\nsupplied in order to stretch the meaning administrative<br \/>\nexperience  to the extent of administrative  experience<br \/>\nin   the  educational  field.   While  relying  on  the<br \/>\njudgment  of  the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court in the  matter  of<br \/>\nPadmasundera Rao (Dead) &amp; Ors. versus State of  T.N.  &amp;<br \/>\nOrs.  reported  in  2002 SAR (Civil)  325  she  further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the intention of the Legislation must be<br \/>\nfound  in the words used by the Legislature itself  and<br \/>\nthe   Court  cannot  read  anything  into  a  statutory<br \/>\nprovision which is plain and unambiguous.  She  further<br \/>\nsubmitted  that in the matter of public employment  all<br \/>\nthe  citizens must be given equal opportunity and  they<br \/>\nare  entitled to share and it cannot be monopolized for<br \/>\nany particular class.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On  the  other hand, Shri Prashant Mishra, learned<br \/>\nAdditional Advocate General, submitted that as per  the<br \/>\nRules,  the eligibility criteria for the post of Deputy<br \/>\nDirector  is that the candidate must possess  10  years<br \/>\nteaching  experience at the Higher Secondary Level  and<br \/>\nminimum 3 years administrative experience in the  field<br \/>\nof education.  Similarly, Education Department sent the<br \/>\nrequisition  Annexure-R\/1 to  the  respondent  No.1  in<br \/>\nwhich  same condition as in consonance with  the  Rules<br \/>\nwas  specifically mentioned and based on that Annexure-<br \/>\nR\/1   respondent   No.1   Public   Service   Commission<br \/>\nadvertised the posts.  He further submitted that if the<br \/>\neligibility  criteria which has been published  in  the<br \/>\nadvertisement (Annexure-P\/2) is read together, the real<br \/>\nmeaning which can be given to the advertisement will be<br \/>\nto  the effect that the candidate must possess 3  years<br \/>\nexperience in the field of education and not  in  other<br \/>\ndepartment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Having  heard learned counsel for the  parties,  I<br \/>\nhave  perused relevant documents, rules and  case  laws<br \/>\ncited by learned counsel for the petitioner.  As far as<br \/>\nthe  arguments  of learned counsel for  the  petitioner<br \/>\nthat every citizen is entitled for equal opportunity in<br \/>\nthe  matter of public employment and in the  matter  of<br \/>\npublic  employment no post can be monopolized  for  the<br \/>\nparticular  class  is  concerned, argument  of  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner is true and same is based on<br \/>\nthe  law  laid down by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court,  but  we<br \/>\nhave  to  see  whether  the above  principle  has  been<br \/>\nviolated  in  the present case.  It cannot  be  legally<br \/>\ndisputed  that  the Government Public  Authorities  are<br \/>\nentitled  to  fix  the  eligibility  criteria   for   a<br \/>\nparticular  post  and the candidate  must  possess  the<br \/>\nqualification  and eligibility criteria  fixed  by  the<br \/>\nGovernment  and only those candidates who  possess  the<br \/>\nrequisite  qualification can apply for  the  post.   In<br \/>\nthat  light we have to examine the present case whether<br \/>\nthe  eligibility criteria fixed by the  respondents  in<br \/>\nany way is against the spirit of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As far as the matter of Bibhudatta Mohanty (Supra)<br \/>\ncited   by  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner   is<br \/>\nconcerned,  advertisement was issued by the  employment<br \/>\nexchange for filling up the posts of Extra Departmental<br \/>\nMail Carriers and in that advertisement for a candidate<br \/>\nto become eligible qualification was fixed as class-8th<br \/>\nand in pursuance of that applications were received and<br \/>\nthe  candidates  were  selected and  appointed.   Those<br \/>\nappointments were challenged by Bibhudatta  Mohanty  on<br \/>\nthe  ground that as per the guidelines, apart from  the<br \/>\neducational  qualification, other  condition  was  that<br \/>\npreference  would  be given to SSC  passed  candidates.<br \/>\nSince  the  selected  candidates were  not  SSC  passed<br \/>\ncandidates,   therefore,   the   selection   was   bad.<br \/>\nConsidering those facts the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court held  in<br \/>\nthat   matter  that  since  the  requisition  sent   by<br \/>\nrespondent  No.4 to the Employment Exchange, candidates<br \/>\nhaving VIII class passed qualification were called  for<br \/>\nconsideration and in the requisition preference to  the<br \/>\nSSC  passed  candidate was not mentioned.  The  Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex  Court  held  that in the first  instance  in  the<br \/>\nrequisition  sent by the Department to  the  Employment<br \/>\nExchange  8th class pass qualification was communicated<br \/>\nand  same was published and accordingly candidates were<br \/>\ninterviewed and preference clause was not given in  the<br \/>\nrequisition.  The Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court further held  that<br \/>\nthe preference clause for higher qualification does not<br \/>\nmean  that  irrespective of fulfillment of other  norms<br \/>\nSSC  passed  have to be preferred.  Where any  rule  or<br \/>\nguideline provide preference in respect of some  higher<br \/>\nqualification,   it   only   means   that   all   other<br \/>\nrequirements  being  equal a person  possessing  higher<br \/>\neducational qualification will be preferred. It cannot,<br \/>\nhowever,  be  considered  as  the  sole  criteria   for<br \/>\npreference in selection and appointment.  Therefore, in<br \/>\nthat matter the candidates who were selected, they were<br \/>\nin  possession of minimum qualification that is why the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Apex Court held that the selection was not bad.<br \/>\nOn the facts this case is of no help to the petitioner.<br \/>\nIf  we  look  into  the facts of the present  case,  in<br \/>\nSchedule  3  of  the  Rules, for  the  post  of  Deputy<br \/>\nDirector the eligibility criteria is minimum 3 years of<br \/>\nadministrative  experience in the  field  of  education<br \/>\napart   from  10  years  teaching  experience  and   in<br \/>\nconsonance  with the said Rule the Government sent  the<br \/>\nrequisition  proforma Annexure-R\/1  to  the  respondent<br \/>\nNo.1  for  filling up the posts and in  the  experience<br \/>\nclause  it was specifically mentioned that 10 years  of<br \/>\neducational and administrative experience  in  which  3<br \/>\nyears of experience  on administrative side and in  the<br \/>\nadvertisement  which  was  issued  by  respondent  No.1<br \/>\nAnnexure-P\/2  it was mentioned that 10  years  teaching<br \/>\nexperience at the Higher Secondary level and minimum  3<br \/>\nyears administrative experience. Therefore, looking  to<br \/>\nthe  requirement of Rules and requisition  Annexure-R\/1<br \/>\nit cannot be said that the department did not ask for 3<br \/>\nyears   administrative  experience  in  the  field   of<br \/>\neducation.  Conjoint reading of the Rules,  requisition<br \/>\nand   the   advertisement  makes  it  clear  that   the<br \/>\nadministrative experience which has been  mentioned  in<br \/>\nthe  advertisement  relates to the  experience  in  the<br \/>\nfield  of  education.  As has been held by the  Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nApex  Court  in  the  matter  Padmasundera  Rao  (Dead)<br \/>\n(Supra)  that the principle of casus omissus cannot  be<br \/>\nsupplied  by  the  Court except in the  case  of  clear<br \/>\nnecessity and when reason for it is found in  the  four<br \/>\ncorners  of the statute itself but at the same  time  a<br \/>\ncasus  omissus should not be readily inferred  and  for<br \/>\nthat purpose all the parts of a statute or section must<br \/>\nbe  construed  together and every clause of  a  section<br \/>\nshould  be construed with reference to the context  and<br \/>\nother  clauses thereof so that the construction  to  be<br \/>\nput  on  a  particular  provision  makes  a  consistent<br \/>\nenactment of the whole statute.  This would be more  so<br \/>\nif literal construction of a particular clause leads to<br \/>\nmanifestly absurd or anomalous results which could  not<br \/>\nhave been intended by the Legislature.&#8217;<br \/>\n     It  is an admitted position that the advertisement<br \/>\nhas  been  issued  for  the  post  of  Deputy  Director<br \/>\n(Education), therefore, the candidate must possess  the<br \/>\nrequisite  administrative experience in  the  field  of<br \/>\neducation  only  so  that he can discharge  his  duties<br \/>\nefficiently and effectively in order to administer  the<br \/>\nschool  education  and for that  purpose  the  post  is<br \/>\ncreated.  Administrative experience in other fields  to<br \/>\nmy  mind  to  a  great  extent  cannot  be  useful  for<br \/>\nadministration in the educational institutions, as such<br \/>\nonly  and  only  interpretation can  be  given  to  the<br \/>\nexperience   clause  published  in  the   advertisement<br \/>\n(Annexure-P\/2) is that the candidate must have 3  years<br \/>\nof  administrative experience in the educational  field<br \/>\nand  not  otherwise  that  is the  only  purposive  and<br \/>\nmeaningful interpretation can be given to the published<br \/>\ncriteria condition.  Any other interpretation may  lead<br \/>\nto absurdity and same will be contrary to the spirit of<br \/>\nthe Rules, 1982 and requisition sent by the Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As  far as the argument of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe  petitioner that in the same advertisement for post<br \/>\nNos.  2  and 3 it has been specifically mentioned  that<br \/>\nthe candidate must possess administrative experience in<br \/>\nthe field of education, whereas, for the post No.1 that<br \/>\nis   Deputy  Director  (Education)  it  has  not   been<br \/>\nspecifically    mentioned   that   the   administrative<br \/>\nexperience must be in the field of education.\n<\/p>\n<p>     As  has  been discussed above that the eligibility<br \/>\ncriteria  which has been published in the  Annexure-P\/2<br \/>\nsame  has  to  be  interpreted in consonance  with  the<br \/>\nrequirement  of  the  Rules and the Rules  specifically<br \/>\nlaid  down  that  for the post of Deputy  Director  the<br \/>\ncandidate   must   possess   3   years   administrative<br \/>\nexperience in the field of education, therefore, by not<br \/>\nmentioning  the specific word administrative experience<br \/>\nin education, looking to the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe  case,  does not make any difference because  first<br \/>\npart  of  this experience clause is that the  candidate<br \/>\nmust  possess 10 years teaching experience up to Higher<br \/>\nSecondary level and thereafter adding the word &#8220;and&#8221; it<br \/>\nhas  been  mentioned  that the candidate  must  possess<br \/>\nminimum 3 years administrative experience.  Second part<br \/>\nof  this has to be read with first part and if both are<br \/>\nread  together then only meaning which can be given  to<br \/>\nthis  is that the administrative experience must be  in<br \/>\nthe field of Education only.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Therefore, in view of the above discussion,  I  am<br \/>\nof  the  opinion that as per the advertisement for  the<br \/>\npost  of Deputy Director (Education) the candidate must<br \/>\nhave experience on the administrative side in the field<br \/>\nof   education   only,  as  such  the  Public   Service<br \/>\nCommission has rightly rejected the application of  the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In  the result, I do not find any substance in the<br \/>\nwrit petition, same is liable to be dismissed and it is<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed. Cost is made easy.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Certified copy as per Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        J u d g e<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Chattisgarh High Court Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service &#8230; on 5 January, 2005 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 4944 of 2004 Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal, Bilaspur (C.G.) &#8230;.Petitioner -Versus- Chhattisgarh Public Service Commisson &#8230;.Respondent ! Smt. Hamida Siddque, Counse for the petitioner ^ Shri Prashant Mishr, Additional Advocate General for [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ... on 5 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ... on 5 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-04T10:55:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service &#8230; on 5 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-04T10:55:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2390,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005\",\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ... on 5 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-04T10:55:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service &#8230; on 5 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ... on 5 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ... on 5 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-04T10:55:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service &#8230; on 5 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-04T10:55:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005"},"wordCount":2390,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005","name":"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service ... on 5 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-04T10:55:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rakesh-kumar-jaiwal-vs-chhattisgarh-public-service-on-5-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal vs Chhattisgarh Public Service &#8230; on 5 January, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185479","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185479\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}