C^-;^35^ (S) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR PETITIONERS W.P.rSVNo. SS&^ /2010 1.' Ram Ashish Shrivastav S/o Shri Braj Mohan Shrivastava, aged about 30 years, C/o Shri K. P. Vishve R/o Near M. P. State Mining Office, Behind Aasharam Bapu Ashram, Makhroniya, Sagar(M.P.) 2.<r Pankaj Kumar Ahirwar S/o Shri Dayaram Ahirwar, aged about 32 years, R/o HIG -19, Shivkalp Colony, Ayfidhya bypass road, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. Mohan Lal Solanlci S/o Shri Narbada Prasad Solanki, aged/about 30 years, R/o Village'& Post - Muagawli, Tahsil & District - Sehor (M. P.) VERSUS. : • 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Higher. Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2] Chhattisgarh Ptablic Service Commissibn, Raipur Through - its Secretary, Raipur (C.G^) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF BNDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER(S): As stated above in the cause title. PARTICULARS QF TEIE RESPQNDENT<S); As stafed above in the cause title. RESPONDENTS APf^ MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5565 0_F2010 PETITIONERS RamAshishShrivastav&Others RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another And WRIT PETITION (S).N0.5909 OF 2010 PETITIONER Jharna Choubey RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petitions underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan & Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocates for the respective petitioners. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal & Shri B.D. Guru, Advocates for thePSC. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 21stday ofJanuary, 2011) 1. W.P.(S) Nos.5565 & 5909 of 2010, involve the same question of law and common facts and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent - Public Service Commission (for short "PSC") whereby the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the petitioners were not in possession of eertificate of passing of National Eligibility Test (forshort "NET"). 3. Shri Goverdhan and Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submit that the last date for filing of ' application, pursuantto theadvertisement dated 15-5-2009 was 22-6-2009. The petitioners had acquired NET certificate of passing, Which is a pre-condition for making application for ^JL^ - ' ! 'l"ytil^-l)—fi 6. selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Law). Learned counsel further submit that the important informations published in the advertisementclearly indicate that the candidate making OMR application was not required to produce any document/certificate in original or photocopy. Accordingly, no certificate was filed. The petitioners participated ih the written examination and they were declared ineligible on the alleged ground that they were not having NET certificate on the date when they had made applications. Learned counsel also submit that the respondent authorities have mixed up with the requirement of possessing qualification on the date of submission of application or having possession certificate of the passing of required qualification. There is no dispute that on the date, the applications were made, the petitioners had passed NET, but were not in possession of the certificate and on that ground the petitioners could not have been declared as ineligible candidates for want of possession of certificate. Learned counsel placed reliance upon decision ofthe Supreme Court rendered in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Others and the decision of this Court rendered in Shweta Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anothei^ wherein the identical issue wasinvolved. Shri Agrawal & Shri Guru.learned counsel appearing forthe respondent - PSC, support the action of the respondent PSC that the proof of eligibility qualification was necessary before the last date of submission of application. 1 have heard learned counset appearing forthe parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 1(2085)9SCC779 2WP (S) No.5297 of2010(decided on 20-11-2010) ^^^ 7. I have perused the advertisement wherein it is provided that before the date of making application i.e. 22-6-2009 a candidate should have NET passing certificate conducted by the UGC or CSIR or SET conducted by the States under clause 3.1 (b). There was no requirement of production of certificate either along with the application form or before the last date of making application. 8. It is clearfrom clause (6) of "the important informations", which was specially published in the advertisement itself stated that no original or photocopy of any documenf was required to be annexed with OMR application. Accordingly, the application was made by the petitioners. It is indisputable that the petitioners had passed NET beforp making the application and the rejection of the candidature on the above-stated ground from any angle is not sustainable. 9. The Supreme Court 'in-Dolly Chhanda (supra) observed as under: "7. The general rule is that while applying for any course ofstudy or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by produeing the necessary certificates, tiegrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualificatipn or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature." ,f;"^li€i, / &.:.,"11 \ ^^£'?*;•:^, i '•"tis -^ Gowri 10. This Court also in Shweta Panaley (supra) observed that possession of certificate is not a pre-condition before making the application.. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the decision of the PSC declaring the petitioners as ineligible candidates on th^grouhd that they were not in possession of NET certificate, though they had passed the NET before the last date for submitting the application forms, is rejected. Accordingly, the PSC is directed to declare the result of the selection process in accordance with the select list, in respect ofthe petitioners. 12. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. No order asto costs. ^ Sd/- Satisli K. Agiiihotri Judge tl .ili