^^ t'9-Q- -1- ina \>; In The^Hon'ble Hieh Court of Chhattishearh af BilaSpur (C.G.) W.P. (S) No. 6 9 93 I 2008 Petitioner ... .... Smt.Neelaii]anaJain,aged37years, WifeofShriAlokJain, AssistantTeacher,Govt. Middle School, Risali, Durg DlstrictDurg (C.G.) Versus 1. State Govt. ofChhattishgarh, Throughthe Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director ofPublicInstructions, . Chhattishgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Professional ExaminationBoard, Chhattishgarh, Raipur (C.G.) ^*?''^-'" Throughthe Secretary. RespondentS ... ,^ ^;^y/ ^•4^'°/ ^ )[:>' ^.-'~ f^- ,^y> „<?• A' 6>° Writ Petition under Artiele 226 of the Gonstitution of India For issue ofwritofmandamus/directionorotlierapiirQpriateWrit. ') HiGH CQURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER Ki WRIT PETITION(S) N0.6999 OF 2008 Smt. Neelanjana Jairi Versus RESPONDENTS State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & "Qthers ^. Post for pronouncement of the order on /2-'-'dav of April, 2010 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri -~ t Jydge "\ J ^y HIGH COJJRT QF G^HHATriSGARK: BLLASPUR .s, PET1TIONER WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6999 OF 2008 Smt. Neelanjana Jain Versus RESPONDENTS State Govt. of Chhattisgarh & Others ^- (Writ petitions under Article226 of theConstitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pramod Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. JUDGMENT (Pronounced on this ti' day of April, 2010) The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a direction to the respondent authorities toallow the petitioner to participate in theselection process for promotion to the post of Lecturer, pursuant to the advertisement published in the newspaper dated 10-10-2008 by granting exemption to the petitioner from having essential qualificationof BTI/B.Ed./M.Ed. Case of the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner has 18 years of experience as Assistant Teacher. She has represented the State of Chhattisgarh in the National level competition as per the instructions of the General Administration DepartmentofGovernment of Chhattisgarh. In some cases, the exemption is granted on the basis of representation of the State in National level competitiOn in IIJC*].!!,sii^- £ ^.^ "w v ^ ^ 6. other services, however, the said benefit has not been extended in pre-promotional selection arranged under the notification dated 10-10-2008 for promotion on the post of Lecturer. Thus, the petitioner may be exempted from having essential qualification of BTI/B.Ed./M.Ed. on the ground of her representation of theState in the National level competition. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 3-12-1990 and has completed ISyears ofservice. She is active in sportsand cultural activities. In Shivnath Lahare v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected matter, this Court has clarified the requirement of essential qualification in order passed today i.e. 12 April, 2010. There is no provision for exemption from having BTI/B.Ed./M.Ed. qualification. Evenif the petitioner has experience in bther fields, this is not for the Court todirect theauthorities to make a provision for exemption to the candidates having similar experiences like the petitioner wherein the Chhattisgarh School Education Gazetted Service (School Level Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008 and advertisement, thereon, there is no provision for grant of any exemption. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefas sought for in fhis petition. Reliance of the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in B.N. Saxena v. Ne* Delhi Municipal 1WP(S)No.6400of2008 ,,.:a''i8::-"%,,. w,B'3W|i|Si. K ^Sjjy'"'"®sJ '^y// ^iy ^ Gowri ^y Committee and Others , wherein the person was not having Diploma qualification, but experienceof service for six years, it was directed to consider his case for promotion to the postof Head Draftsman. The facts of the case on hand are entirely different and secondly there is no experience in the field, but lacking the essential qualification in education. Thus, the case of B.N. Saxena (supra) is not applicable to the present case. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Thereshall be no orderasto costs. ^t^vs" ^^^ _ AIR 1990 SC2021