^- ^^ IN THB HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S»No. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS '4, ^: ^w ^;>--^^ ^v" ^^ 's' j 'SM/K^hlk} ® ^\ x^—^^/^ ^y^ "~^ /<^j ^' Jd. /2009 i!© Ajeet' Kumar Dahariya S/o Shri Munna Ram Dahariya Aged about 24 years R/o Village- Dhabar, P.S. - Pendra, Distt.-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Developnient, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer Janpand Panchayat- Podi- Uprora, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Examination Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 4. Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Shaiikar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i .^"yr""^ /"'^ ^-. %.. 1. ^ Ih^. €° ^ ^.-' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (S) No. 741 of2009 Omkar Sahu. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. RESPONDENTS : ALONGWITH W.P.(S) Nos.742 of 2009, 743 of 2009, 744 of 2009 and 745 of 2009 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate appearing on behalf of Smt. Mecna Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lav^yer for the State. None for other respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 26th day of April, 2010) Writ Petition (S) No. 741 of 2009, 742 of 2009, 743 of 2009, 744 of 2009 and 745 of 2009 involvc common facts and common question of law and^ as such, they are being disposec! ofby this common order. Learned counsel appearing for the respectivc petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.01.2008 {Annexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 741/2009 and W.P.(S) No. '742/2009}, 12.01.2008 (Annexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 743/2009), 11.01.2008 {Annexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 744/2009}, 13.01.2008 {Annexure P/l to W.P.(S) No. 745/2009}, published by the various Janpad Panchayats v^z. Mungeli,, Pathariya, Masturi and Pali ofDistrict Bilaspur and Janpad Panchayat Podi Uproda, ofDistrict Korba, the pctitioners made an application for seiection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. The minimum qualification as prescribed in the aforesaid advertisements was Higher Secondary Examination pass certificate and Diploma in Education certificate (for short 'D.Ed.). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the above advertisements, the petitioners appeared in the examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. However^ they were not called for counselling and not considered for ^!W S^^ ^' /•^'^^ ^ t l 'f i ^Ps^^'^ ^^S£^F" > 2 appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade 111, even though they were in possession of D.Ed examination certificate and the Higher Secondary School examination certificate. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were not having the essential requisite qualification as on the last date of making application i.e. 09.02.2008. Obtaining requisite qualification later on, is ofno relevance, as it is well settled principle oflaw that the requisite qualification has to be obtained on or before the last date of filing of application. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Admittedly^ the petitioners were not having the essential requisite qualification ofD.Ed at the time of submission ofapplication form i.e. on or before 09.02.2008. The petitioners have acquired D.Ed certificate only in the month of June, 2008. The issue of date of possession of requisite essential qualification in case of the competitive examination is no longer res integra. The essential qualification has to be in accordance with the requirement of the advertisement as well as prevalent rules as on the last date of making application, not thereafter. There is no dispute that on the last date of making application, the petitioners did not have essential requisite qualification ofD.Ed certificate. The petitioners have further failed to show any provision in the light of advertisement wherein it was in contemplation that the petitioners should have obtained the requisite qualification during the examination or thereafiter. The contention ofthe leamed counsel for the petitioners that since it is not prescribed in the advertisement that candidate should have possessed the requisite essential qualification on the last date of application, thus the petitioners were in possession of the requisite qualification during the selection process. Accordingly, the petitioners ought to have been selected and appointed on the basis of qualification, which they acquired just before completion of the selection process, is noticed to be rejected on asimple ground that the '•^^ l-'"ri''1^ ,i r' B . <-sl 1 ^y petitioners have not obtained the requisite qualification on the last date ofsubmission ofapplication. 8. 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 oflndia and others observed as under: "20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the same should not be flooded with applications ofineligible candidates. A cut-offof datefor the purpose ofdetermining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence ofany rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the la^, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last dateforfiling the application.)> 9 In Dipitimayee Parida v. State of Orissa and others1 , the Supreme Court held that "ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid do^nfor the recruitment should be considered as on the last datefor filing ofthe application'\ 10. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts ofthe present cases and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitions have no merit and are accordingly dismissed. 11. There shall be no order asto costs. \ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit ' ( 2007)4 SCC 54 2(2008)10SCC687 r