^:f:^w!fs1^^^^^sf^^SSW^ ;H •^ mGHGOURTOFCHHACT-nSGARHATBILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENT8 : 1 WRTT PETmONtfSyNo.1703 of2009 Prayin S|onwamj S/o Late SIsri Tulsi Sonwani,| Aged aboirt 21 years, R/o Behind Clotli Mwkef, Du^ Nagar, Pandri, Raipur .VERSUS : .'1 ,;•- :; . . . .;..;, .., State ofj Chhattisgarii, jThrou^i: Secretary, ^ arid^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I^ Mantralaya, D.E.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Chief Execytive Ojfficer, Jaiipad Paiichayat Arang.ISist.-Raq^ 3. Exam|ina|^on Control Professional Examination Board, Raipur 4. Prmcipal, District Education and^^^^^^^^T^ lastitute, ShankarNagar,^^^^^ WRTT PETTTION UNDER ARTICLE 226^24 OF THE CDNSTTFimON OF INmA SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. AgmlroM, J. Present: ShriJXShastn, Advocate fbrlliepetitioaer. Ms. SimitaJain,Pan@lLa^^ ORALORDER (Passed on08th(iayof May, 2009) Leamed eounsel appearmg forthe pet^ not m possession of D.Ed/examinati^^^ time of filing of ari application^a^ &r filme of the application fbr tbe post of Shiksha Karmi, Grade III was 09.02.2008; Therequisitequalificationfor appointment to the post of Sliiksha Karmi Grade III was Higher Secondary Schoot ;Exammation and D.Ed. exammation certificate. It is furfher prescnbed fhat injtih^ event D.Ed. candidates are not available, the other candidates maybe considered. AccordingtQ Mr. J.K. Shastri, fhe petitioner has complefed D.Ed., durmg selection process. Leanwd counsel fiirther submits fhat since it is not prescribed asto ^e^ shoutd have requisite qualification, the petitioner is entitled to have b^rwfrt of D.Ed. examination certificate as it w^ producedatllietime ofmterview. 2) On query asto what is the general prineiple whelher a candidate must possess requisite qualification either before filing of fhe application or any other fixed date mentioned in the advertisement, leamed coimsel appearing for the petitioner is unable togweproperreply. The qualificationas requiredas a^^^^ IJ--..1 ofgeneral principle should be M the time pffiiling ofthe appHcation foNll^^ Shiksha Kanrn Grade III. In para 2.4ofthe advertisement, it is made clear tiliat the requisite educational qualification must be possessed by a candidate on or before the last date ofsubmittingfhe applieation, 3) The question asto v^hat shouljd bje the cut-off date m absence of any date specified, in this behalfeither in fhe advertisement or in the reference isno longer res integra. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of AshokKtimar Sonkar Vs. Union oflndia and c»^r^r observed as under: "20. Possession ofrequisijte educational qualification is mandatory. The same shjould not be uneertain. Ifaii uiwertainty is allowed to prevail, thesame should not be flooded with applicatipns of ineligible candidates. A / cut-ofF of date for fhe pyrpose of determinmg the eligibility ofthe candidates cotwemed mu^t, tterefbre, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in fhe ach^ertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be Ae last date fbr filmgthe application."' 4) Inihe matter of Dipitimciyee Parida Vs. State ofOp'issa and others1 , Hon'ble the suprenie Court held tfaM "c^ fhe qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recmitment should be considered as on the last date for filing ofthe application". 5) Applying the well settled principles of law to the facte ofthe present case, wfaerein no date was specified, the candidates must acquire fhe requisite qualification on the last date of filing of fhe application. The petitioner did not have D.Ed. qualification at that time. 6) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, fhe petition has no merit and is accordmgly dismissed suiiunai'ily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit, !(2007)4 SCC 54 2 (2008) 10 SCC 687