^* Q^- (^^ ^ai^ BE'm^^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1'°..•••; ^s''.^' ^/[. ' ^>"< ^' ^K^ ^y %y'?' ' AT BILASPUR w. p. der7 No a^>^ of 2010 ^ Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, aged about 36 years, R/o House no. F/9, New Minal Colony, J.K.Road, Bhopal (M. P.) VERSUS :1 State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Department of health and family welfare, Secretariat / D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary Chhatisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. mGHCOURTpFCHHArriSGARHAI^^^m^ WRIT pETITION (8) No. 2256 of2010 PETITIONER : Raj Kumar Shanna. RE8PONDENTS VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & anofher. WRFI' PETniON UNDER AK'nCLE 226 OF THE CONS'ITlVnON OF IND1A SB: Hon'ble SSm Satisli K. Agii&otrS, J. Present: Shri Sameer Behar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy^ Panel Lawyer for&€State/respondent No. 1, Shri Y.c.8hamia, Advocate forfhe respondent No. 2. ORDER(OMAL) (Passed on 06th day of May, 2010) Leamed counsel appearing fbr fhe petitioner suhmits that pursuant to the advertisenient dated 01.10.2008 (Annexure P/1) which was subsequently amended cn 15.05.2009 (Annexure P/3). fhe petitioner has made an application fbr selection and appomtm©aton the post of Assistairt Professor (Noti-Climcal) m Phann^ology Depariment. 'Fhe application of the petitioner was rejected by fhe respondeirt No. 2- Chhattisgarh Public Service Commissioa» on tihe ground that fhe petitioner did not possess requisite qualification as stated in the advertisem^at fbr tfae post of Assistant Professor. (Pharmacology) and further that the petitioner has not mentioned Phaimaceutical Cheanistry as specified inthe advertisement On pemsal offhe documents, it appears that fheqimlification prescribed fbr Pharmacology was M.D. (Phamiacology)/M.B.B.S. witi Ph.D. (Med. Pharmacology)/M.Sc. (Med. Pharmacolo^) with HI.D (Med. Pharmacology)/M.8G. (Med. Pharmacology) wit D.8c. (Med, Pharmacology) aad fbr Pharmaceutical Chemistry, tfie qi^alification prescribed was M.Sc. (Phamiaceutical Chemisfay). Tte yetitioaer is in /s:<\ i t^^ 1 tts^ 1 •. ""'I./ ^, t^^^ ~%^y Amit t>ossession of ^^iiiii e A^ Chemistev but tiot the Ji. • .-.- • • •."::^-'•;':-«»,<t:—^,-'..."••. ^:'" .-.•• . . :;, w/ degree as stated fbr Pharmacology. Accordmgly, fhe petitioner's application was rejected as m both the applications, tiie petitioner has mentioned that the department as Pharmacology. The second contention of the petitioner that under the Medical Council of India Regulations, Pharmaceutical Chemistry comes withm the <tepartment of Phamiacology, thus. the application ofthe petitioner ou^hit to have been accepted aiid the petitioner ought to have been considered fbr appomtment cn the post of Assistent Professor m Phamiaceutical Chemistry (non-clinical). The contention ofthe petitioner is rejected (m a simple ground that when the specified subjects are given m tfae advertisement wherein Pharmaceutical Chemistry is also given, there woa no occasion to be confused as the qualitlcation is presaribed fbr boljb (subjects/ departments) separately. The petitioner mstead of applying for Pharmaceutical Chemistry has applied tor Phamiacology when these departments are shown separately inthe advertisement. Admittedly, the petitioner, not having tibie requisite qualification for Pharmacology^ is not eligible fbr appomtment on the post of Assista&t Professor in Pharmacology (Non-Clinical). llius, there m no irregularity in tfae decision taken by the respondent No. 2-Conunission by rejeetiag his application. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge