GB S‘NGLK: DLHUH ,. %)@6Z/‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 3 § WRIT PETITION @NO. Si¥$€ /2oo9 PETITIONER Ku. Kuleshwari Dewangan, D/o. Shri Bhoiar'am Dewangan, Aged abouT 28 years, R/o; Village & Pos'r DaniToIa, Bar'pam, Tahsil & Dis‘rr'ic‘r Dhamfari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1. STaTe of Chhaffisgarh, Through The Secretary, Genera! ' Adminis‘rrah’ve DeparTmenT, Manfralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. ChhaTTisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Secre’rary, Shankar Nagar Raipur (6.6.). STaTe Bank of India, Through The Manager, Main Branch, i T Rad, iaspr C..). Hgh Cour o Biu (G HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 5786 0f2009 PETITIONER : Ku. Kuleshwari Dewangan. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri Arvind Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer fOr the State/respondent N0. 1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11m day of March, 2010) 1. The case of the petitioner is‘ that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No.2 for State Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2008, for selection and appointment on the post of Civil Services, the petitioner made an application. She appeared in the preliminary examination successfully. However, the petitioner was not permitted to write the main examination on the ground that the bank draft required to b'c submitted alongwith the application form for a sum of Rs. 200/— in favour of Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, payable at State Bank of India, Raipur Branch No. 7237, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, was not proper. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was not the fault of the petitioner but the fault of the respondent No. 3- Bank. The petitioner had made an application carefully to.the respondent No. 3-Bank for issuing a bank draft ‘in the name of respondent No. 2, payable at Raipur at the above stated address. The respondent No. 3-Bank has issued a draft which was payable at Ahmedabad Main Branch and that too, in the name of Ashok Textiles. Shri Dubey further submits that the petitioner, after acquiring proper bank draft from the respondent No. 3-Bank, has sent the same to the respondentvNo. 2 later on. Thus, for the fault of the respondent No. 3— Bank, the petitioner may not have been deprived from appearing in the main examination. \ \ \ ,. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The contention of the petitioner that it was the fault of the respondent No. 3-Bank, deserves to be rejected on a simple ground that it was for the petitioner to be careful at the time of receiving the bank draft from the respondent-Bank. The petitioner acquired the proper bank draft only on 17.08.2009 and the last date of submission of the application form alongwith the bank draft was 22.06.2009. Thus, the petitioner failed to comply with the instructions issued by the respondent No. 2, within time, as the application was required to be submitted alongwith the bank draft for a sum of Rs.200/— in favour~of respondent No. 2, payable at Raipur. Subsequent submission of‘the bank draft beyond the last date of submitting the application form would not cure the defect. The petitioner ought t0 have been careful while making an application for appearing in the mains examination and sending the bank draft to the respondent No. 2 as per the requirement. Once the petitioner has failed to deposit the proper bank draft within the prescribed time, the petitioner has no right to be considered thereafter. 6. It is Well settled that the examination is not only the process of selection, but also the process of elimination having regard to the large number of candidates appearing for limited seats available. The petitioner ought to have fulfilled all the requirements. It is inevitable‘for each candidate to be careful and cautious in making the application and complying all the conditions, instructions and directiéns, as advertisedThus, there is no merit in this petition. l i 7. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. f l l y l / g .1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri' Judge Amit