'•^'^^ /y^ ^^esis^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'bTeShrrRXChandrakar^JJ. WritAppealNo.112/2011 ^ Appellant/ Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition Respondent/ Petjtioner No.1 in Writ Petition Vs. 1. Respondent/ Petitioner No.2 jn Writ Petition Respondent/ Petitioner No.3 in Writ Petition Respondent/ Respondent No.1 in WritPetition 2. Chhatfasgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur (CG), through its Secretary. Ram Ashish Shrivastava, S/o. Shri Brij Mohan Shrivastava, aged about 30 years, C/o. Shri K.P. Vishve. R/o. Near M.P. State Mining ofRce, Behind Aasharam Bapu Ashram, Makhroniya, Sagar Pankaj Kumar Ahirwar, S/o. Shri Dayaram Ahirwar, aged about 32 years, R/o. HIG 19, Shivkalp Colony, Ayodhya by pass Road, Bhopa (MP) Mohan Lal Solanki, S/o. Shri Narbada Prasad Solanki, aged about 30 years, R/o. Village and Post Mungawli, Tahsil & Dist. Sehor(MP) 4. State of ChhatUsgarh, through Secretary, Higher Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) AND WritAppeal No.113/2011 3. Appel!ant/ Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition Respondentf Petitioner in Petition Vs. 1. Writ Chhattisgarh Public Semce Commission, Raipur (CG), through its Secretary. Jharna Choubey, D/o. Shri J.V. Choubey, aged about 30 years, R/o. C/o. C. Robinson, Sister Tutor, C-1, Type Quarter, Regionai Health and Family Welfare Centre, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (CG) .—^^ \ .^•f'^ ^f N .--ifl;?T%uc^. ^ vfy Respondent/ Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Higher Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) Memo of Appeal under Section 2(11 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act 2006. Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (28.03.2011) Heard on I.A. Nos.1 and 2, applications for condoning delay in filing the appeals respectively. I.A. Nos.l & 2 are allowed. Delay in filing the appeals is here by condoned. Learned counsel forthe appellants inWrit Petition Nos.112/2011 and 113/2011 are heard on admission and both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as common issue is involved in these appeals. The respondents/petitioners, in response to advertisement dated 15.05.2009 issued by Public Service Commissjon (herein after "PSC"), submitted their applications for selectionand appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Law). However, the PSC rejected their candidature on the ground that the petitioners were not in possession of certificate of passing National Eligibility Test (hereinafter "NET") on the last date of maklng application, i.e. 22.06.2009. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the PSC,the respondents filed the writ petitions and learned Single Judge allowed their writ petitions by a common order with a finding that the decision ^,...—--:^. .<---'*-" of the PSC declaring them as ineligibte candidates, on the ground that they were not in possession of NET pass certificate, though they had passed NET before the last date of submitting the appliGation form, is rejected and the PSC is directed to declare the result of the selection process in accordance with the selection list, in respect of the petitioners. 4. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that indisputably, on the last date of submitttng the applications, i.e. 22.06.2009, the respondents/petitioners were not in possession of NET certificate and did not produce the same along with their applications. Relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54, it was argu^l that possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty js allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the / eligibi!jty of the candidates concemed must, therefore, be fixed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents appended there to. 6. Leamed Single Judge, considering the conditions of the advertisement, according to which, only requirement to be eligible to apply for the post was that on the date of making application, S.e. 22.06.2009, a candidate should have pass NET certificate conducted by the UGC or CSIR or SET conducted by the State under Clause 3. 1 (b) of the advertisement and further considering clause (6) of "the ^ :-y 7. important information" of the advertisement which stated that no original or photocopy of any documents was required to be annexed with OMR application and further considering the Indisputable fact that the candidates had passed NET before making the apptication held that the rejection ofthe candidature is not sustainable. After examination of the conditions of the advertisement and pleadings of the respective parties, we are in entire agreement with the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge and hold that learned Single Judge was right in holding that there is no ground for the PSC to reject the candidature of the respondent candidates. We find no substance in the appeals and the same deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. ^ Bini Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge