, ,,^feS- lc. ^^%^S^-"""""* P1-' ' \^.!..^-^- Q^--""" ^c^^. ^^•i~ ^s' i.-^ " »^y^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FCHHATTISGARH1 WRTT PRTTTIONrSINo.: -^ s ^ / 2010 S.B. PETmONER:- / RESPONDENTS: - Shri Ram Nayak, Age- 24 years, S/0- Shri Roop Lal Nayak, By Post -Pharmasist Grade-II, at Primary Health Clinic-Patsendri, R/0:-Village- Ikchapur, Post Chattigtrolla, Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund [Chhattisgarh] -:VERSUS:- i. StateofChhatidsgarh Through fhe Secretary, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Mantralaya Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ^2. The Director, Health Services, D.K.S. Mantralaya Campus, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3. The ChiefMedical & Health Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund [C.G.] 4. The Block Medical Officer {B.M.O.}, City Health Center, Block Saraipali, District Mahasamund [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTmjnoN OF INDIA FORTHE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION CS) OR ORDER CS). ^^.^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.757 OF 2010 Shri Ram Nayak Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri J.A. Lohani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 25th day of January, 2011) 1. Heard tearned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validityof the order dated 28-1-2010 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund, by which the petitioner has been terminated from his services. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 30-1-2009 the petitioner appointed on the postof Pharmacist Grade - II by order dated 3-2-2009. However, all of a sudden on the basis of some complaint received against the petitioner thathe has attested thedocuments in a fraudulent manner the impugned termination order was passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that on receipt of complaint, proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and even the petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings. During the course of enquiry, it was found that the petitioner has not acquired the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 28-2-2008 whereas the date of registration of the candidature of the petitioner from the Pharmacy Council is 16-4-2008. On the basis of said default committed by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed, which is legal & valid. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others , obsen/ed as under: 1 (2007) 4 SCC 54 ..^^^ /^^\ ^/ ^' ff i._^^ 1 ^Q/ Gowri "20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date forfiling the application." 6. In Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa and others , the Supreme Court held that "ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recmitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application". 7. It is an admitted position that on the date of submission of application form, the candidature of the petitioner has not been duly registered with the Chhattisgarh Pharmacy Councjl, as required in the advertisement and is evident from the return filed by the State and even the said fact has not been rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. It is a trite law that possession of requisite qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with the applications of ineligible candidates. 9. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 10. In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ——— Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge (2008)108cc687