1. Introduction

The case of Abhishek Bhaskar v. State of Chhattisgarh arises from a recruitment process for the post of Training Officer in the Employment and Training Department. The petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Bhaskar, was initially deemed successful in the written examination but had his candidature rejected because he could not prove that he was previously paid through a bank or post office as per guidelines issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). This decision of the Directorate of Employment and Training was challenged before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

The key issue revolved around whether guidelines stipulating salary payment only through banks or post offices are mandatory or directory. Despite the petitioner meeting all other eligibility requirements, the authorities refused to appoint him solely because his prior salary was paid in cash. The Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey clarifies the nature of the NCVT’s guideline, thereby setting a significant precedent for similar recruitment matters.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In a brief outline, the High Court found that the relevant NCVT guideline—requiring salary to be paid exclusively via banks or post offices—was never included in the original recruitment advertisement or in the governing recruitment rules (the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, as amended in 2019). The Court reasoned that the guideline is directory in nature and not mandatory; therefore, a candidate’s appointment cannot be denied solely on the ground that salary in a previous employment was paid in cash.

Concluding that non-compliance with this specific guideline did not justify rejecting the petitioner’s candidature, the Court quashed the rejection order. The respondents were given an opportunity to re-scrutinize the petitioner’s application on other criteria (if necessary), but the Court explicitly directed them not to use the bank/post office salary payment rule as a disqualifying factor.

3. Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

In the Judgment text provided, there was no explicit citation of earlier judicial decisions from higher courts (e.g., the Supreme Court or other High Courts) on the precise issue of salary payment modalities. Nevertheless, the Court thoroughly referenced certain regulatory documents and guidelines:

• Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014
  Though these Rules govern the recruitment for the post of Training Officer, they did not contain any mandatory provision about the mode of payment of salary.
• Amendments of 2019
  The amended Rules of 2019 likewise contained no provision regarding salary payments exclusively through banks or post offices.
• NCVT Management Manual for Industrial Training Institutes
  This manual contained instructions urging that instructors engaged in ITIs be paid via banks or post offices to ensure transparency, regular payment, and timely salaries.

The High Court’s main reliance, therefore, was on interpreting whether these instructions from the NCVT had a binding legal character or were suggestions/guidelines that the State could adapt. The Court concluded that these instructions were “directory,” not “mandatory,” especially as they were absent from the original recruitment advertisement and the statutory rules.

b) Legal Reasoning

The Court highlighted that an authority cannot reject a candidate on grounds not specified in the recruitment notification or within the statutory rules governing that recruitment. The Court reasoned:

1. Absent in Advertisement and Rules: Because the bank/post office requirement did not feature in the recruitment advertisement or in the 2014/2019 Rules, the candidate had no prior notice of such an obligation.
2. Directory, Not Mandatory: The relevant NCVT guideline was introduced to improve transparency and standardize salary payments, but the Court found it was intended more as a best practice than a strict qualification requirement.
3. Opportunity for Inquiry: The Court noted that if there were concerns about the candidate’s experience or credibility, a deeper inquiry could be conducted. However, merely failing to document a bank/post office mode of payment was not sufficient to reject the candidature outright.

Therefore, using a purely discretionary guideline to withhold appointment was deemed legally unsustainable.

c) Impact

This decision carries significant implications for recruitment processes in public authorities and government departments:

• Checks Arbitrary Rejections: Recruiters must now ensure that if they are imposing specific procedural or substantive conditions, those conditions must be clearly outlined in the recruitment notice or applicable statutory framework.
• Clarification on Directory Guidelines: The judgment distinguishes between mandatory requirements and directory guidelines. Government agencies cannot elevate internal or advisory guidelines to mandatory rules unless the law or recruitment advertisement clearly states so.
• Transparency and Fairness: While guidelines encouraging transparent salary payments remain important, they cannot be used solely to invalidate an otherwise qualified candidate. This principle may influence similar cases where authorities attempt to rely upon internal guidelines for disqualification purposes.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

The Court dealt with whether a recruitment guideline was directory or mandatory. A guideline is considered “mandatory” if it must be followed strictly and the failure to comply leads to automatic disqualification. A guideline is considered “directory” if compliance is encouraged for general uniformity or transparency, but the failure to comply does not result in disqualification on its own. Here, the Court reasoned that paying salary through a bank or post office is a recommended practice for transparency, not a hard-and-fast legal requirement.

Another key concept in the Judgment is the difference between rules that appear in official recruitment notifications or statutes versus those found in manuals or internal directives. Only requirements expressly included within the legislative or properly notified framework can be enforced against applicants without ambiguity.

5. Conclusion

In Abhishek Bhaskar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh High Court firmly clarified that an agency’s internal or advisory guideline—here, the NCVT directive requiring salary payments through a bank or post office—cannot override published recruitment rules and advertisements. The Court declared the guideline to be directory and not mandatory. Consequently, the petitioner’s candidature was improperly rejected, and the Court quashed the rejection decision.

This ruling reinforces the principle that recruitment authorities must strictly adhere to the terms of their own advertisements and statutory frameworks, and should not import additional constraints midway through the appointment process. It upholds fairness in governmental hiring practices while highlighting the continuing need for transparency and uniformity in salary disbursement—albeit without unjustly disqualifying candidates who did not meet a criterion that was never clearly mandated in the relevant legal documents.

Overall, this Judgment serves as a landmark clarification in public employment law: a reminder that best practices and guidelines, while laudable, must not deprive qualified individuals of employment when those practices are not officially entrenched in the recruitment rules.