c^ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p.te)i4). 63U^oT2oio PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS: ^.Q Smt. Ayesha Fatima Rizvi W/o S.A.H. Rizvi aged about 34 years^ R/o C/o S.T.H. Rizvi, lily convent school, Rajatalab, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through: The secretary Higher Education Department^D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through: The Secretary, Shankar Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) University Grant Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi (rNDIA). Professional Examination Board Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 2260FTHE CONTITUTION OF INDIA ^ x<\^^ ^^^<>''"' ^i-y" t, v< '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATraSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI <& HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. JJ. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.fs) No.6347/2010 Smt. Ayesha Fatima Rizvi Vs State of Chhattisgarh <& others Present: Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General Mr. A. Sinha, Adv. Mr. S.S. Rajput, Adv. with Mr. T.V. Singh, Adv. For the petitioner. For the respondent No.l. For the respondent No.2. For the respondent No.3. ORAL ORbER (Passedon 29th July 2011) I.M.Quddusir^ 1. Heard. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though she is eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Bio-Technology), as she possessed SLET certificate in the subject Zoology, which is equivalent to Bio-Technology subject, but the respondent No.2 has rejected candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (Bio-Technology) on the ground that SLET certificate is in different subject. 3, Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ptace the matter before the committee of experts in the field of Bio-Technotogy/Zoology for clarification/opinion regarding 4. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs, which are enumerated in Paragraph No.IO of the writ petition,:- "(i)That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the following records leading to the impugned inaction on the part of the respondents for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court Page 2 of 3 ^•' (a) Instructions and rules issued by the professional examination board Bhopal M.P. for conducting SLECT examination for the year 1999. (b)Order of the University 6rant Commission where the commission declares that the SLET (M.P.P 1999) in Zoology is not valid for the Assistant Professor biotechnology. (c)Any order of the SLET/SAT/NET exam where the candidate passed in the subject of biotechnology in the year1999. (d) In the year 1999 when the professional examination board M.P. tool SLET exam at that time zoology was a faculty or subject. Such order may be presented by respondent no.2 through U.G.C. (ii) Since the instructions were already issued by UGC (respondent No.3) the examination of SLET uvas held on the recommendation and the authority of \JGC, Professional Examination board in 1999 and the respondent No.2 (PSC) hod no authority to reject the name of petitioner on the basis that the certificate produced by the petitioner for passing the SLET examination is not of biotechnology but of zoology. Thus; the respondent no.2 (PSC) has done a great injustice to the petitioner in not including her name in the men't list which is quite unlawful therefore this Hon'ble Court is humbly prayed that her name should be included in the merit list since she has done no fault in appearing the PSC exam." 5. A bare glance at the prayers made make it clear that the petitioner had not prayed for a writ directing the respondents to consider her case in light of the fact that Zoology subject is equivalent to Bio- Technology subject and therefore she is entitled to appear in the interview. Even the petitioner has not prayed for a direction that her case be sent to the Committee of Experts body in the field of '''-^ Roshan/- Page 3 of 3 Zoology/Bio-Technology and obtain clarification/opinion on the subject matter. 6. In view of the settled legal position that a party cannot be granted a relief which is not specifically claimed, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition being sans merit and substance, is dismissed. — Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge