PETITIONER' Swapnil Rajput, D/o Kamlesh Singh Rajput, R/o- ShyamaPrasad ukerJee Colony, Slkola Bhatta, Durg, M ‘ ge about 23 ear Ad s Disrict and Tehsil — Durg (CG. t ) RTS ESPONDEN ' Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur, District and Tehsil- Raipur‘(CG.). Deputy General Manager (Maa.Sa;)Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd, Dangania, Raipur (CG.) WIT R PETITION UNER D AICL RTE 226 OF TE H CNSTITTION OU OF INDIA Versus / \w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 367 OF 2011 Petitioner Swapnil Rajput Versus Respondents Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB ' Hon’ble Mr Satish K Agnihotri J) Present - Shri R S Baghel Advocate forthe petitioner Shn Abhlshek Slnha Advocate for the respondents ORDER (ORAL: (Passed on 215‘ day of January, 2011) $ 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks for foilowing reliefs : (i) That the Hon’b/e Court may direct the respondents to consider the qualification possessed by the petitioner as eligible one for the post of Office Assistant Grade—III by issuance of appropriate writ/writs order/orders and direction/directions (II) Any other relief or reliefs which honourable court may deem ft In the facts and Circumstances of the case When it was pointed out to the petitioner that the above stated relief cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction, the counsei of the petitioner boldly states that it is not possibie to amend the relief, the matter may be heard as it is. Shri Sinha, Iearned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the candidature of the petitioner has already been rejected on the ground that Data Entry Certificate produced by the petitioner was not recognized for O.A.lll (DCA). Shri Sinha, referred to Clause 3(ii) of the advertisement, where it is mentioned that Diploma should be P.G.Diploma, not Diploma in Computer Application, as is evident from markseet (Annexure P-2). \\ 4. Be that as it may, looking into the prayer, wherein the petitioner does not challenge the order of the authorities wherein his qualification was not found proper, but seeks direction to consider the qualiflcation possesses by the petitioner, as eligible without support of any documents or instructions, and also the submissions made by the counsei for the petitioner that no amendment is required in the relief. i am of the opinion that the above stated relief, having regard to the facts of the case, as aforestated, cannot be granted by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/-' Satish K. Agnihotri Judge