%..,. ^y:y y^s '^;E3^^ ^S.-Sfl «\xl HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: Appellant Petitloner HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeal No. 471 of2010 Smt. Preeti Satpathi, w/o Brajesh Satpathi, aged about 29 years, Assistant Professor, Govemment Chhattisgarh College, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the (Respondentsin writ Secretary Department of Higher petition) Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2 R. Ravi Shankar Shukla University through the Registrar Raipur (C.G.) 3 Chhattisgarh State Publte Senrice Commission, through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE W<^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT^flOe Present: Shri Varun Sharma, counset for the ap|»ltant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Generat, for the State/ respondent No.1. JUDGMENT ith (09" December, 2010) The foltowing judgment of the Court was pa^ed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant - Smt. Preeti Satpathi has filed thte intra Court appeal against the impugned order dated 10.11.2010, passed in W.P.(S).No.5571/2010. ' ^^tlgSiiRass^ffi 'iosfqns 84t "! l!4d'lftl P ssjBsp syt Buipnpui suoiieoyiienb iBBuassa 941 6uissassod jo^ siep yo-ino 941 se 600S"90"ZZ JO Buixy 6ui6u8||Bt|o uojtDsd ti-w ai|l PS|U 'MaiAjatui ayi jo.} pa||eo sq tou Aeu ays ieyi SuipueiiajddB 'jeuoitiiad syi -MB~\ 'jossaiojd IUBISISSV 10 tsod sqi joj paiidde yjBSsiueyyo 'uoissiuiiuoo aouuss oiiqnd ayi Aq psnssi (e-d a-inxauuy) 600Z"90"(K psiep lueiuesitjaApe syi 0} esuodsej ui jeuonsad aqi •JSBBUI 84} ui atep ^o-»no syi se eoaz'QO'SZ p Buuaj SuiBuaiieyo SBM 'aoueisqns ui sni)} 'jauot)!)8d syj. (e .-jsuoit!}ad ay»01 ^soo aqi ^o BUIPJBMB Buipnioui eseo aqi p s30UB]sujnojio pue spe^ siji ui isnf pue tU psuiasp sq ABLU (Bitt jspjo jsijio Xue 9)|eui A|pu&| oj. •AI (£/d3UnX3NNV) 600Z/SO/OZ psiep lustussiyaApe 941 0} tuensjnd josssiojd IUBISISSB p isod sqi jo^ sssoojd uoiioaias ai|t ui aiBdiojijed 0} jauoiiitsd sqi mo||e o\ uoissiuuiuoo aoiAjaS oi|qnd luspuodssj sqt psjjp A|pui>| 01 •ui •^isjSAiun tuspuodsaj syi Aq pafliiuiuoo }|nB» 0} anp jossapjd tueisissy p isod sifl cq tueuituiodde jo^ ssaoojd uonoaiss ayi ui 6uyBeddB syi jo^ jsuoiijisd 94} mi a}Bp yo ino eqi xe|9Joi 4JB6s!HB4t|0 P SIBIS I'ou luepuodsej SMt 0} sniuepueuj jo IUM e anssi A|PUD| 01 •it •siuspuodsej ayi uiojj 3880 ayi ^o spjooaj 941 joj ||BO A|pui>| 01 •t,, :Spl|8J SUIMOIIOJ ayi JQJ uoiiitsd IIJM aqi psiy j8uoi(!»ad/tueiiadde ayi (z 4) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not flnd any illegality in flxing of 22.06.2009 as the cut-off date by the Public Service Commission. Learned Sjngle Judge, tttereftire, dismi^ed the appellant's writ petition vide impugned order dated 10.11 .2010. 5) Shri Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Juc^e has erred in not glving due weight to the fact that there is no nexus in flxing of 22.06.2009 as the cut-off date in the matter. 6) A bare perusal of the advertisement Annexure P-3 reveals that the last date for submissions of the forms was 22.06.2009. The result of the petitioner's M.Phil examination was declared on 26.11.2009 i.e. after the cut-off date of 22.06.20C®. 7) The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 has held that a candidate applying for a post of must hokl 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 Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Unlon of India aiid Others (supra), we do not find any substance in the above submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 9) The intra Court appeal, ttierefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu !fi'S;i«(®^l