w HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1795 of 2007 Petitioner Verajs Respondents '•^" .^- Smt. PrdAa ShAla W/Q Shri Anand Shukla Aged about 57 yews Occupntion Sovemment Servant (Incharge Principal G.6.H.S.S. Baloda Bdzar) Resident of ©andhi Chowk Balodo Bazw, bistrict Raipir, Chhattis9<rh 1. Stote of Chhattisgarh, Through ;- Secretary, Depn'tment of school Education, &.K.S. Bhawan Raipir (c.e.) 2. Chhattisgorh Public Service Cornmission, Raipur Throigh :- Chairman, Chhattisgorh Public Service Commission, Shonkar Ntgor Road, Rcnpur [C.6.] 3. Chief Medical Officer, Mdi<isamund, District Mohcennund [C.6.] 4. Chief Medical Officer, Raipur Olstrict Raipur [C.6.] 5. Principal ©overnmentHigher Secondary School Amlipadar, Raiptr District Raipur [C.@.] 6. Principal ©overnmentHigher* Seconddry School Raipura. Raipur District Raipur [C.6.] 7. V.S. Markom. the then District Education Officer, Raipur, 8. ffcrinda Ram Chondcaka*, Deptrty Mrector, Department of PiA>lic Instruction ; Hon'bte^Ar. Justice Satish K. ^nihotri. Present: ttr. Vivek Kumw Pandey, Advocate for the patittoner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lasyer fop the State/re^)ondents No.l.3,4.5(ind6. None appews for respondent No. 2,7 and 8. ^- OR&ER (Passed on 2811' t)ay of March. 2007) Tlie foltowing order of the Court was pcssed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner is working as In-charge Principal in Sovernment ©irb Higher Seeondary School, Batoda Bozar, District-Roipur. The petitionsr, purguant to the advertisement dcrt-ed 9 July, 2003 (Annexure P-I) opplied for appointment on the post of Deputy Director, School Education. The qualification as prescribed was post graduate in Second Oivision and 10 yea*s experience of teaehing hfigher Secondary classes and 3 yews (Klministrative experience or 7 years teoching experience and 3 yeors fflinimum administrative experience in Education Oepcrtment. 2. The petitionep admittedly has 10 yeors teachin9 experience and 2 years 7 months administrotive experience os having additional charge of Principal, ©overnmentfflrls Higher Secondary School. 3. The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for qiKBhing of selection and appointment of the respondent No, 8 as Oeputy Dir'ector ond a writ in the nature of mandamus/direction that the petitioner' be grwrted relaxotion in experience. 4. Oh query, learned counsel oppearing for the petitioner- sut»nitsthat the petitioner is not in a position to point out asto under which provision of taw or notificGl'ion or cireulw relaxation in CKlministrative experience con be granted. The case of the petitioner is tfxrt if relaxation has been granted in favour of the respwident No. 8, the scame should be granted to the petitioner also for consideration for appointment on the post of Deputy Director'. The petitioner has armexed the judgment and order dated 16.11.20)5 possed by this Court in the nwtter of Mohanlal Jaiswd and others Vs. State of Chhatti^arh <md other comected matters (W.P. > 5. No. 599 of 2005) wher-ein the main question wi-Hi regord to the appointment of the petitioner was asto whettier •the certificate of O.B.C. submitted by respondent No. 8 te td<en into consideration as prior to the crsation of State of Chhcrt'tisgarh under provisions of Modhya Prwilesh Re-or-ganization Act, SXX), the respondent No. 8 wca treated as other backwird community belorging to Kurmi Cciste. With regard to his experience, it has been found thatthe petitioner has worked as Principal for 1 yeor 4 months and 29 dcys, and as a District Educafion Officer for 2 yews 3 morrths and 6 days. If both the periott is taken as administrative experience, it is much more thon three yea-s. Therefore, odmittedly, the experience obtained by the respondent No. 8 wos more than 3 years and the petitioner hos less than 3 years experience i.e. 2 years 7 moirths working as In-cherge, Principal in Sovernment Sirts Highep Secondary School, Bcloda Bszw, bistrict-Roipur. In view of the elear provision of experience as notified in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission dated 9 Juty, 2CX)3, the petitioner does not have the required administrative experiencs os to be considered for the p<wt of Oepirty &irector>. There is no merit in -Hiis cose. In view of the obove, it is not necesscry to go into the other issues involved in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Judge w Subhosh i