> , ’ image gem EE%ORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI §v§ AV. a” x SG CHHATTISGARH VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Manpower and planning D._K.S.Bhawan, Raipur Director Woinens polytechnic campus, Baron Bazaar Raipur,(C.G) 3. Additional Directer Employment and Training Raipur,(C.G) ARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOMSWO. /2011 CU‘VQ) {9 wl ’l Temple, Raja Talab, r (CG) Womens polytechnic campus, Baron Bazaar WRIT PETITION UNDER-ARTICLE 2216 OF THE CONSTITUTION OE INDIA. 5‘. PETITIONER /~’ 1. Aradhana Thakur aged 41 years W/o Shri Sanjay Thakur R/o 3/ 78, Near Santoshi Noorani Chowk, Raipu ' V/ 61> Employment and Training / M HIGH COURT OF CI-IHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (S) No. 1979/2011 ' Aradhana Thakur Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others ORDER Post for H/ 05-2011 Sd/- Prashant kumar Mishra Judge \ \ 1 \ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU $.13: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishm Writ Petition gS) No. 1979/2011 AQQeaI‘allcel Shri Anurag Jha, counsel'for the petitioner. Shn' Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE t CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (u .052011) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking quashment of the order/communication dated 20th Jéhliary 2011 (Annexure P—I) whereby the Deputy Director, Employment and Training, Chhattisgarh has returned the application form together with required fee which the petitioner had submitted for participation in the process of recruitment initiated by the respondents for the post of Training Officer (English Language Communication Skill), amongst others. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the required qualification, as per the advertisement, for the subject post is graduation and B.Ed. ”along with the subject of English Literature, however the petitioner is having higher, qualification of post 7 graduation in English Literature, . therefore rejection of her [application is illegal and arbitrary. H R PETITIONER : Amdhmia Thakur Versus RESPONDENTS : State of \ VZV \ In the advertisement (Anncxure P—2) and the corrigendum (Annexure P-3) the essential eligibility qualification for the subject post has been shown as graduation and B.Ed. with one of the subject as English Literature. It is also provided therein that a candidate having post graduation‘in the subject of English Literature shall be accorded preference. The petitioner appears to have the degree of graduation in Science and ther'eafter‘has acquired the qualification of post graduation i.e. MA in English. However, from the application form submitted by her (Annexure P-S) it Would appear that the petitioner has not cleared the graduation examination with English Literature as one of the subject. (4) By seeking the relief to quash the letter (Annexure P-l) whereby the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected, the petitioner impliedly seeks a declaration that even if she does not possess the basic qualification of graduation with one of the subject as English Literature, acquisition of degree of post graduation in English Literature should be treated as _ having prescribed qualification because the said degree is a higher degree.‘ Learned counsel has also relied on judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of State of Orissa and another Vs'. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436. (5) In the matter of VK. Sood Vs. Secretary Civil Aviation and others reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 9 the Hon’ble Supreme (3) s x %ourt has held that it is for the expert body to lay down the eligibility criteria for the candidates to participate in the process of recruitment. It is further held therein that “This is not the province of the Supreme Court to trench into and prescribe qualifications in particular when the matters are of a technical nature. In the said case the Supreme Court, after referring to several of itskearlier decisions, General Manager, S. Rly. Vs. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, State of Mysore Vs. P. Narasing Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349, State of ‘ J & K Vs. Triloki Nath IGtosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 and State of Orissa Vs. N.N. ‘Swan'ty (1977) 2 SCC 508, has held that equality of opportunity does not mean absolute equality and that the said article does not exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post. (6) In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court; when a particular qualification has been prescribed as essential qualification in the advertisement, acquisition of the said qualification would be necessary for any candidate to participate in the process of selection and that in the absence of any such qualification the respondent/authority has not committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s application to participate in the process of selection. (7) There is no substance in this writ petition, which fails and is Sd/- l frashant kumar Mishra Judge hereby dismissed. \ i