/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. &^1 of2010§JNfiLE BENCH PETITIONER to ^"r ^p-^ ^..-•-^. ^p -.•v'~ ^•••' ^i^y ^" v>+" ^y^ <<A.--"" '^6U' RESPONDENTS Shubhmoy Mukherjee, W/o - Shri S.K. Mukherjee, Aged about - 25 years, ^fv^ R/o - Near Santumal Oil Mill Raman Mandir Ward Fafadih, Raipur District — Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Departaient of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Public Service Commission, Through: Secretary, Shanker Nagar Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 3.^ University Grant Commission, Through: Chairman / Secretaiy, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi (India). WRIT PET!TION_U_NDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIOJJ OF INDIA ^^ ^ §1^'' Asst HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTF PETmON rS) No. 6511 of2010 PETTTIONER : Shubhmoy Mukheijee. \rERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh& Others. WMl' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aorihotri, J. Present: Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemmenf Advocate forthe State/ respondent No. 1. Shri SanjayK. Agi-awal witfa Shri B.D.Ouru, Advocate ; fbr 1h&respondenitNo. 2. (MtDER«3>RAD (Passed on 25a dayofJanuary, 2011) 1. The petitioner is a.gg-ieved with the decision of the respondent- Public Service Commission wherebv the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitoiner was not in possession of certificate of passing of National Eligibility TestSforshort •NET'). 2. At the very outset, leamed counsel appearing for the parties joiiitly and fairly submit that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to Ifaat of W.P.(S) No. 5565/2010 (RamAshish Starivastava &. Ofhers v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another), which has been decided by this Court on 21.01.2011 after considering the decisions of flie Supreme Court as well as fliis Court. Thus, this petition may also be disposed of in tenns of the order dated 21.01.2011, passed in Ram Ashish Shrivastma (supra). , 3. In view of the above fair suhmission, this petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 21.01.2011, passed in-Ram Ashjsh Shrivastava(supra). ; Satish K. Agnihotri Judge