T r --^. C^f" '5-iw IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. fS) No.2-3 / 2011 PETITIONERS •^"/ ^^y ^' 9, ^^ A'y^ <>??v-)y-- .V 4*^- ^"••'TJj1- ^u^/s. ^~.J&V^ rT»< 1. Dr. Mayank Kulshrestha, S/o Dr. A.K. Kulshrestha, aged about 29 years, R/o. 15 Ram Hridyay, Krishna Shakha Society Rohinipurara Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. Dr. Vivek Mahalwar, S/o G.S. Mahalwar, aged about 28 years, R/o Infront of Koteshwar Shiv Temple Masjid Road, Kota Raipur (C.G.) ^ 3. Dr. Satish Chourasia, S/o R.L. Chourasia, aged about 31 years, R/o 19 Parijat Extension, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT(S) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Departanent of Health 8s Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Y ^ ^ 2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chairman Chhattisgarh State ^ Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^l^^^S^ ^ II .')- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.23 OF 2QU Petitioners Versus Dr. Mayank Kulshrestha & Others State of Chhattlsgarh & Others (Wrii Petition under Article 226 of the Gonstitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vaibhav Shukta, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 6th day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioners, seek a direction to the respondent No.2 to allow the petitioners to participate in the selection and recruitment process for the post of Lecturer & Reader in pursuance to the advertisement dated 2.9.2009 (Annexure P-2) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are Ayurvedic GraduaSes and have degree of Bachelor of Ayurveda with Medicines & Surgery (B.A.M.S.) and they have applisd for the post of Lectujer and Reader in pursuance to the sdvertisement dated 2.9.2009 (Annexure P-2) published by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commlsslon, but the respondent authorities have canceied the candidature of the petitioners on the ground that they have not acquired the requisite qualification i.e. Post-graduate quaiification on the date of submission of the appiication form. Shri Shukla, further submits that the impugned action of the respondents is against the provisions of Articies 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents ought to have r' z, ^w^ 4. aliowed t'ne petitioners to participate in the selection process. On account of inaction on the part of the respondents, the career of the petitioners is adversely affected. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the action taken by the respondent authorities and submits that possession of requisite educationai qualification is mandatory on the date ofsubmission ofthe application form. ! have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto. This Court in Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others observed as under: "13. It is a tiite law that if the cut-off date for age limit as wetl as for qualification is not prescnbed in the advertisement nor in the Ruies, 2007. it shouSd be the Sast date for ^ling of the application pursuant to the 6. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and other^ observed as under: "20. Possessron of requisite educational qua'iificatson 'ss mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be ^ooded with ^applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eliglbility of the candidstes concemed must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specffic date having been fixed in the adverffsement, the law, therefore, ss held &y this Court would be the last date for filing the application". 7. !n Dipitimayee Parida v. State ofOrissa and Others , the Supreme Court observed that "ordinariSy the quaiification of extra Decided on 22"" February, 2010 inW.P.SS; No.4829/200i (2007) 4 SCC 54 (200^10SCC687 ^ ^?a . -^ qualificsnon laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing ofthe application". It is an admitted position that on the date of submission of appiication form, the petitioners have not acquired the requisite qualification of post-graduate degree. Even the petitioners have not completed the course of post-graduation, as is evident from the pleadings of the petition. It is a trite law that possession of requisite education qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is aiiowed to prevaii, t'ne emp!oyer vi/ould be flooded wlth applications of Ineligibie candidates. Sn view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed at the motion staae itself. Sd/- satishK.Agni^n ?e inok i'fr