AMENDED WRIT PETITION IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.[S) N0. 2568 z 2010 (8.13.) 1. Dharam Lal D‘ewangan, S/o Milan Sai Dewangan, Aged about 42 years, R/o Sahid Bhagat Singh Colony, Korba, Distt. Korba¥(C.G.) Puniram Dilewar, S/o Sulut Ram Dilewar,’ Aged about 35 years, R/o Police Line Korba, Distt. Korba;(CG) Petitioners Versus Resgondents The Dy. Chief Personal Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur~(C.G.) The General Manager (Personnel), Coal India Ltd., Kolkatta~(W.B.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION bF‘ INDIA HKEH COURT OF CHHATWSGARH i BiLASPLfR WRW PETETION (S) NO. 2568 OF 201C} Mirit Pgtiiion Liade¥ Ariéde 226 ca?‘ the Consiiiutien of mdéa) Singie gench : Hm’ 3e Shi‘i Sa ish ~< Agniho ri‘ J. Present :— SM H.?.Agrawa§. Advacaie for ihe pe£§t§0ners Shri Abhishek 3mm, Adxi'ocate far {me Vespendents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed 6n {ms 25th day of Aps'ié, 201 1) 1. Learned counsei appearing for the pe’mioner submits ihat @ursuant ‘m the notif cafaon dated 1.4.2010; i‘ne petitioners made appiicatians for seiectiGn and appointment on the post ef Weifare /Per30nna§. Accoi'ding to me ieamad ceunse! for the petiiicners, i‘ne candida‘mre of the petiimmers has been fejected by the reeponden’: autheriiiee on the gmund that the peiitioneye are not in eosseseion ef requieite quai§§ica€ion as preemibed in the said notification The centeniion o? the petitieners is that the cut 0f? date for que§if§caiien prescribed wae 3G.G§J.2OGQ; whereas the neiificatien wee published or: O1 A94201O. The impugneci aciion ef i’ne .reeponden‘is is mega, arbiirery and egaine‘k the p¥incip3ee 0f flame] juet%ce. 2. On we other hand. Earned counsei appearmg fer ‘ihe respendents submi’is iha’c the petitioners were not hev‘mg the essential requisite ’queiiftcatiem as en the last date of making applieetieh te. 30.06.2310. Qbtaihihg requisite quetificatieh tater eh‘ is 0t no retevartee, e5 it is weii settteci prihcieie 0i iew the §=ET§T30NERS Dharam Lai fiawangan & Anoiheg‘ Versus RESPONDENTS The Gy, Chief Personai Manager & Another requisite qua§ifiaatian hag 1:0 bg obtained en or befere the iast daie nf mag a? anaiicaimn. h“ l have heard Iearned counsei appearing for the parties. perused ihe pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The iesue of date of poseeseion 0f requieiie essentiai qualification in case of the competitive examination is no ionger res integra. The essential quelifioatien ae weii as the age has to be iri accordance with the requirement of the adveriisement as weii as prevaient ruies as on the iast date of making appiication, not thereafter. There is no dispute that on the iaet date of making appiicatien; the petitioners did not have essentiai requisite quaiiticaiion. The petitioners have further iaiied to show any provision in the iight of advertisement wherein it was in contempietion that the petitioners couid have obtained the requieite euaiifieatien during the exarninaiion or thereafter. This is not a case of the petitioner that fixation or” the cut off date was arbitrary or not in accordance with iaw. The question asto what shouid be the cut-off date in absence of any date specified, in this behaifeither in the advertisement or in the reference is no ionger res integra. ‘i‘he Supreme Court in Ashok Ku‘mar $onitar v. iinion of indie and others1 observed ae under : ()1 “2G, Possession of requisite educationai qoaiification is mandatory. The same shouio’ not be uncertain. if an onoertaim‘y is allowed to met/aft, the same snooi’d not be needed with appticariions of ineiigibie Candidates. A cut-off of date for the purpose of determining the eiigibitr’ty of the candidates concerned most, therefore, be fixed in absence of any rote or ()A amy specific dais having been i§xed in the adveifisemem‘ the iaw, fherefore, as heid by this Coun‘ would be the Iasf date for 1§Iing fhe applicafEen. 6. in Bieiiamayee «amide v. State of Orissa and ethers2 , the Supa’eme Ceurt hem that “ordinarily the quaii§cafion 9r extra quaiificaiion iaia‘ down foy the recruitment should be considered as an five :‘asz‘ date fer fifmg of ihe appk’cation”. Appiying the wei! settied pmcipies of iaw to the fade of the present case and for the reasene mentioned hereinabove, the petitiom hae no mere and ie accordingw dismiseed. 8. There sheik be m3 erder asto casts. Ashok 2 (2003) 1.0 sec 687.