$H Respondent \ 4.J S S (I Vs. ce c‘ E [ ./ Present: Ms‘ D§pali Pandey, ceuneel for the petitioners. ate for the State. agat Ram Patel s/o Shn Chamar mgh Patel aged about38 years Rio aria TahSI! Sarangarh Dist Ragarh ZG). Itate of Chhattasgarh through tecretary, Department of Panchayat nd Rura! Development Mantralaya )KS Bhawan Ralpur (CG) , Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advoc. \ [11%W \ \ WW. WW W W x m - \é:31 z) ‘3 Wmw? (é) W N o 200 . m . W mmmm aswfggm H!GH CQURT OF CHHAT HSGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon’ ble Shri D irewdra Mishra, & Hon’ ble Shri R N. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Petition S} o. 163‘? 0f 2069 P tel aged about 38 years R/o C hotebhandar TahSi. & District R :igarh {CG}. 2. C hqb! !a! Patei S/o Shn Mactan Lal P te! aged about 42 years Rio P slada Post Office Pussor Tahsu & D strict Raagarh (CG) 3‘ em Lal Nishad S/o Shri Moharsai Nshad aged about 39 years r/o P siada Post Offme-Pussor Tahsnl & Istnct Ralgarh (CG) \ 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia) {Writ Petition under Article (Passed on this 15‘ July, 2009) Per Dhirendra Mish’ra, J. By this petition, the petitio 1e‘rs have challenged the condition of the notification dated 30-1 1-2007 (AI Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksh Service) Rules 2007, wherein ec Grade-i has been prescribed as equivalent in concerned subject in concerned subject group with B.Ed. ll, second class graduate degree The aforesaid eligibility cr iteria has been challenged on the ground that the same is unreasonable i and arbitrary as by conducting qualifying competitive examination for s lection of the aforesaid post, the above educational qualification for eli bility to be appointed as Shiksha Karmi We have he/a}d learned c unsel for the petitioner on admission. the matters relating to recruitment, prescribing qualification to be ligible to apply for the post fallswithin \exclusive domain of the emplo r. The court has no role in determining [113% éfa'a inexure P11), wherein Schedule—ll of the a Karmi (Recruitment & Conditions of ucational qualification for Shiksha Karmi second class Post Graduate degree or with B.Ed and for Shiksha Karmi Grade lt is settled law that i Grade l& ll, looses its signitican e. Qral Order \ \ \ \ the methodology of recruitment or is also not open for the courf to m of the candidates. The court can minimum quaiification for appoint cannot sit in judgment against the We are fortified in our‘v Supreme Court in the matters of U reported in 2008 AIR SCW 6564 and others, reported in (2007) 11 S:cc 599). laying down the criteria of seiection. lt ake comparative evaluation of the merit "lot suggest as to What should be the nent to a particular post. The court decision of employer in this regard. iews from the judgments of the Hoh’bie nion of India vs. Pushpa Rani & others, and Surinder Singh vs. Union of lndia’ in view of the foregoing, the petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and is at :cordingly dismissed. Raju t ,I/l Sd/- t ./ l t sal- . {Dhirendra Mishra} ‘ _# \y ‘ RN. Chandrakar 1‘ Judge ' t . i Judge ////