?^iL? -•iM/St c R'l'yii'R ^l^iyi-A- f.-'' ^ (£T27? (~ IN THB HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. Al' 8 9'^ /2009 PETITIONER Sunil Das S/o Late Shri Milan Das, aged about 28 years, R/o Quarter No. 523, Sector 4/A Balco Nagar, Korba C.G. VERSJS RESPONDENTS ^y> ^€^' y' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary General Administration Department, D.K. S. Bhawan Raipur C.G. 2. The Public Service Commission, through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar Marg, Raipur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI ETC. )R DIRECTION/ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. MAY THIS PLEASE TO YOUR LORDSHIP, -i-esnectfulb' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4876 of 2009 Petitioner Versus Respondents Sunil Das State of C.G. andothers Post for pronouncement of order on/^-10-2011 Sd/- pritinkerDwaker Judge / ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4876 of 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Sunil Das State of C.G. & Another Shri Rakesh Pandey counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur Dy. AG for the respondent/State. Shri Abhishek Sinha counsel for respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (;?.10.2011) Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned list (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for his main examination on the ground that he is not entitled to get reservation under ex-serviceman as he was discharged from the defence services at his own request. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 22.9.2008 advertisement No. 10/2008 was published by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, inviting applications to participate in the preliminary examination for appointment on various posts prescribed under Rule 1 of Chhattisgarh State Services Examination Rules (hereinafter referred to as "Examination Rules" for convenience). Pursuant to the said advertisement, various candidates filled-in their forms and participated in the preliminary examination which was conducted on 1.2.2009 and the result whereofwas declared on 01.05.09. Petitioner's further case is that he was declared successful for the main examination and was informed accordingly by notice dated 18.05.09 (Annexure P-5). For the main examination the petitioner was also sent a separate form to be filled-in in terms of the conditions contained in the advertisement dated 20.09.08 which was published on 22.09.08. Further case of the petitioner is that though he filled-in the complete form for the main examination under the category of ex servicemen, he has been declared ineligible vide Annexure P-1 in which the name ofthe petitioner finds place at S. No. 88. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner rendered service in the defence department (Electronics Mechanical Engineering) from 30.7.2002 to 31.12.2008, he has been declared ineligible for appearing in the main examination only on the ground that he was discharged from service at his own request, which according to him, is illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the petitioner furi:her submits that candidature of the petitioner for the main examination has been rejected without properly considering the Rules. He submits that the PSC should have given the definition of ex-servicemen in the advertisement itself and it cannot expect from the candidates to know the same. According to him, after working hard the petitioner was under the impression that he would get benefits of reservation but he has been denied the same. 4. Replying to the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondent/PSC that as per clause 29 of the advertisement (Annexure P-4) a candidate belonging to ex- serviceman category was required to submit relevant certificate to this effect along with the application form but in the case of the petitioner no such certificate showing him to be the candidate of ex-serviceman category was submitted. He submits that column 5 of the certificate submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P-3) goes to show the status of the petitioner as non ex-serviceman and therefore, respondent/PSC was fully justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner to appear in the main examination. He submits that not even a single document has been filed by the petitioner certifying him to be the ex-serviceman by the competent authority and that being so the action of the respondent/PSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is justified. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Clause 29 of the advertisement (Annexure P-4) unequivocally mentions that a candidate is required to submit the certificate of his/her being handicapped or his/her belonging to the ex-serviceman category as the case may be, along with the application form but in this case no such certificate is shown to have been submitted by the petitioner at the relevant time. More so, column 5 of Annexure P-3 filed by the petitioner himself goes to show the status of the petitioner as non ex-serviceman. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by way of proper certification of the competent authority that he belongs to the ex-serviceman category. In the midst of all these shortcomings on the part ofthe petitioner, action of respondent/PSC in rejecting his candidature for the main examination appears to be fully justified and calls for no interference in this petition. 7. Consequently, the petition being without merit is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. -^-~---- Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge