^»«" {•^•s\. H1GH COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CQRAM: Appellant Petitioner Respondents HON'K-E SHR1 RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 418 of 2018 Smt. Alka Agrawal, w/o Shri Akash Agrawal, aged about ^years, R/o. Opp. Raman Cycle Stores, M.G. Road^ Baloda Bazar, District Ralpur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS 1 The State of Chhattisgarh thrcugh Secretary Higher Education Department Marrtralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through Secretary, Ralpur(Chhattisgarh) 3 Examination Controller, Ghhattisgarii Public Service Commission, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) Writ Appeal under Sectton 2(11 ofthe CG Hiah Court (Appeal tQ^BiyJsioD Bench) Act. 2006 Present : Shri H.B. Agrawal, leamed Senlor Counsel wKh Ms. Pragya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General for the Stale/ respondent Np. 1.. JUDGMENT (07th December, 2010) The following judgment of the Court was pass«l by RajeevGupta,C.J. ^.A.-yy^, aw'ir-^. S :!'^^!^. ^ -i-^tl:nj^l ^ t(l.. .J" •'y^^1 ^- .^l-cl- •'•' 7isy'^-'[' Appellant - Smt. Atka Agranwat has filed this mtra Cowt appeal against the impugned order dated 27.10.2010, passed in W.P.(S).No.5994^010. 2) The appellant/ petltioner flled the writ petition for the followlng reUefs: "10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Psychology) whteh she has already qualified and due to fixing a date of 22.&3WQ whlch is neither rational nor legal is liable to be set asicle and action of respondents in not considertng the case of petitioner for appointment be held to be illegal because admittedly as per Annexure P-4 there was no appointment up te 2.2.2010. 10.2 Costsofthepetition. 10.3 Any other relitf or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded." 3) The petitioner, thus in substance, was challenging fixing of 22.06.2009 as the cut-off date tn the matter. The petitioner in response to the advertisement dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Public Service Commission, Chhattisgarh applied for the post of Assistent Professor, Psychology. The petitioner, apprehending that she may not be called for the interview, filed the writ petltion challenging flxing of 22.06.2009 as the cut-off date ftw possessing the essential quallfications Includlr^ the degree of h4.Phil in the subject. ZsSf' .^'^•^. •'•^•s.'. 4) Leamed Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not flnd any illegality in fixing of 22.06.2009 as the cut-off date by the Public Service Commission. Leamed Singte Judge, therefore, dismissed the appellant's writ petition vide impugned order dated 27.10.2010. 5) Shri H.B. Agrawal, leamedSenior Counsel for the appeflant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in not giving due weight to the fact that there is no nexus in fodng of 22.06.2009 as the cut-off date in the matter. 6} A bare perusal of the advertisement Annexure P-1 reveals that the last date for submissions ofthe forms was 22.06.2009. 7) The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2007) 4 SCG S4 has held that a candidate applying for a post <( must hold the requisite qualifications on the last date ofsubmission ofthe application form. 8) In view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Arimk Kumar Sonkar Vs. Unlonof India and Others fsupra^, we do not find any substance in the above submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 9) The intra Court appeal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu