IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATT'ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) Np. 673 pf 2009 Petitioner Ku. Rekha Thanapati, D/o Shri B. D. Thaaapati, aged about 20 years, R/o Rav^ram Telibaadha, Raipui' (C. G.) Versus Respondeuts 1. State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Secretaiy, Panchayat and Rural Developinent, Manti-alaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) CIrief Executive Officer, Janpad Paachayat, Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C. G.) Examiuation Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur (C.G.) Pruicipal, District Education and Training Institute, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C. G.) 2. 3. 4. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF'THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotriJ.) J. K. Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respoadeut No. 1/State. ORSLEJR. (P&ssed on tlus 16th Day ofMarch, 2009) Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner subnuts fhat pursuaat to the advertisement dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P/1) fhe petitioner applied for tbe post of Shilsha Kanni Grade-III. At fhe tiine of submission of fhe appUcation the petitioner was a student of 2nd year D. Ed. examinadon course. She appeared in the D.Ed. examiaation on 6.4.2008, the result of which was declared in June, 2008, wherein fhe petitioner was declared as passed ta the D.Ed. examination. The petitioner got 46.73 inarks ia the examtnation of Shiksha Kanni Grade-III but she was not catled for counsellit^. Accordiag to the advertisement, the reqiiisite quatification for appoiatuient to the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade III was .resinog .lemna qoqsv ni 'pmoo autaidns s^q.uoH jo noispsp sqi no SuiAiai <(mdns) 600S jo Z8TT •ON (s)'cCM ^moo siqj, -9 •jaitai AIB -ioj pspT^aa ^oa st janoiii^ad SIR '600S 'qwBN p^g paiBp (sxaino •ig qjBSst^Bqqo jo SfBis -SA ^aqnoqo BqsiN) 600Z jo 2.8T l •ON (S)'d'A ai ^inoo srqijo aoispap aq^ 10 A3TA ttl ^sqi siniiqns s^^sf-i •ON liiapltodsaj 3Tp joj SirueaddB lasanoo p3UJB3f 'TBlploo -i3d •S •Apj jadoid 3Ai3 o^ s^qBlin si isEiOTfc^sd aq"t JGJ SauBaddB {ssimoo psTi-ieat '(. lu3m:38pj3ApB 3Tp TII pauopiiaui spap psxg .tsipo AIE jo TioriEOTiddB 3tp jo Slltig: aiojaq jaTpTa uorfesyipavh a^isinbai sssssod ^STIHI atBpipaBo 18 jgq^aqA aidpaud p3.l3ua8 aTR. ST ^BqA OISB Aianb ao 'l? '§lIT[3Sim03 joj p3[{B3 aaaq 3ABq ppioqs sqs pitB a^Eogpjao uoi^Buiuiyxa •pg-Qjo ^gaasq SA^q o^ paiittaa si j3a:oitr(3d aq^ 'aoTtBog[[Bnb aiisinbaj 3ABq ppioqs jaaorti^ad 31^ asqA OISB paquosaid ^OU SBA ^l 33TH8 ^Bq^ s^Tcaqns jaTRJnj 3H •8irt{3sano3 joj p3H80 sq 01 papiiua SBA aqs ajojajaq^ 'piaq SBA 111 apB-EO HIUB5I Bqsspqg jo fsod aqi sof aoiiBuiiuexa aq^ SUIR aqi Aq J3AO SBA\ 'pg'a jo uortBuinrBxa sq^ aoiiiS 'ssaooiid aortoaps Sm.mp •pg'CI pa^aiduioo seq jaaopiiad aiq^ vsq^ s^Tcaqns -E3tpjry: jsuorfrtad aqi JQ^ gnuBaddE psanoo paiUBai 01 Slltpiooov "£ •p3-[3pISU03 aq jfeia: sa^BpipuBO jsrpo aq^ s^qEfiBKB i.on SJB saiBpipiiBO 'Pa'Q VI3A3 3TR Ttl IBTR p3qU3S3.id J3IpJTy: SBM tl •p3S8Bd "a'Q pire uoi^BuiuiBxg aiBogpjao looqog Arepitooag jaqgrH "^ y'Ksss 7. Vs. Union of India and others1 and Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orlssa aud others2 held fhat "Applyiug the weU settled principles of law to fhe facts of the present case, wherein no date was speci&ed, the candidates inust acquire the requisite quaUfication on the last date of fiiing of fhc appUcation." In view of fhe foregoiug, fhe petition has 110 inerit and it is accordingly disnussed siimmarily. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' (2007) 4 SCC 54 2 (2008) 10 SCC 687