^y.u- w^v^ y^'^'' .r , \0;' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (8) NO.// ^30/2009. PETITIONER: Respondents /y A^S y.-<!\7^( ^ .••''^ yb ~/^/^ ^;. ."1 €%-/^/ 1 ^^ ^-£^h. s-^; ^ S.D.Prasad, son of Ashok Kumar, aged about 29 years, Ward No. 11A- Railway Colony, Gunderdehi, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Joint Commissioner, Vikas Aayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Development Commissioner, Vikas Aayukt Karyalaya, Vikas Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Superintendent Engineer, Gramin Yantoriki Sewa, Vikas Aayukt Karyalaya, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (^ ^^\, •I %s:^ ^c\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 4590 OF 2009 S.D. Prasad Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 31st day of March, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 24-5-2008 (Annexure - P/1), the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment on the pcst of Deputy Engineer (Civil) in Panchayat and Rural Welfare D^partment, Government of Chhattisgarh. The minimum .qualification as prescribed in the advertisement was 3 years Diploma in Civil Engineering subject or 2 years Post Diploma in Rural Technology and Management subject or other higher educational qualification. Admittedly, the petitioner was not having either higher qualification or 3 years Diploma in Civil Engineering subject or 2 years Post Diploma in Rural Technology and Management subject on the last date of making application that was 22-6-2008 in accordance with the advertisement. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner wrote the written test successfutly and thereafter, the petitioner obtained AP-<^ \A.O 3 years Diploma in Civil Engineering subject, which he presented in the counseling on 11-8-2008, despite that the petitioner was not selected on the ground that the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite essential qualification. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was not having the essential requisite qualification, as on the last date of making application i.e. 22-6-2008. Obtaining requisite qualification later on, is of no relevance, as it is well settled principle of law the requisite qualification has to be obtained on or before the last date of filing of application. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The issue of date of possession of requisite essential qualification in case of the competitive examination is no longer res integra. The essential qualification as well as the age has to be in accordance with the requirement of the advertisement as well as prevelant rules as on the last date of making application, not thereafter. There is no dispute that on the last date of making application, the petitioner did not have essential requisite qualification. The petitioner has further failed to show any provision in the light of advertisement wherein it was in contemplation that the petitioner should have J u\ obtained the requisite qualification during the examination or thereafter. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since it is not prescribed in the adveri:isement that candidate should have possessed the requisite essential qualification on the last date of application, thus the petitioner was in possession of the requisite qualification during the selection process. Accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been selected and appointed on the basis of qualification, which he acquired just before the counseling. The contention of the petitioner has noticed to be rejected on a simple ground that the petitioner has not obtained the requisite qualification on the late date of submission of application. The question asto what should be the cut-off date in absence of any date specified, in this behalf either in the advertisement or in the reference is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and others1 observed as under: "20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. Ifan uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the same should not be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off of date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application." 1( 2007)4 SCC 54 ,^>-3^^ /£'^ j ^f£^^J 'w s ^. "%^./ k^ 8. In Dipitimayee Parida v. State of Orissa and others2 , the Supreme Court held that "ordinahly the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date forfiling ofthe application". 9. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Gowri Judge (2008)108cc687 9