^- kr^ 1 'Q^^f^§ S" ;7^.>.,,. ...... •^S^S &" rLS£;"^ii?i ,i-fli!i"i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR © PETITIONER: ...•'8° RESPONDENTS: ._,^^it£&;'^^ ;f ,.«'"° fi>/ v)'%. ^. *i. J '"'(wA.^s^v^ 'Wff^y^ '%ffs^svy W.P.S No.........?.??.%).... ../2010 Smfc Preeti Satpathi W/o Brajesh Satpadu, aged about 29 years, Assistant Professor, Goverrunent Chhattisgarh College, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS - ^" 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Pt Ravi Shankai Shukla Uruversity Through the Registrar Raipur (C.G.) 3. ' Oihattisgarh State Public Service Corrunission, Through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: ^ %. ;!'s;stife. 6 'SissQS, B •;,,^;i^%,^ "!'sswy &- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5571 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Smt. Preeti Satpathi State of Chhattisgarh and others Post for pronouncement of order on ^(j.11.2010 Sd/- pritinkerDiwakar Judge IIIillll 1B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5571 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Smt. Preeti Satpathi State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Varun Sharma counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai, PL for respondents/State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER ((&.11.2010) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though she has been permitted to appear in the written examination conducted by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short the 'PSC') on 29 November, 2009 for the post of Assistant Professor(Law), she is not likely to be permitted to appear in the interview to be held in future. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 20.5.2009 (Annexure P- 3) an advertisement was issued by the PSC for the posts of Assistant Professor in 32 subjects including that of Law. Pursuant to this advertisement the petitioner had filled in her form before the last date fixed for the same i.e. 22.06.2009 but as the result of her M. Phil. Examination for the Academic Session 2008-09 could not be declared by the University in time, she may be deprived of appearing in the interview. According to the case of the petitioner, her M. Phil examination was held in the month of April 2009 i.e. prior to the publication of advertisement by the PSC of various subjects including law but her result was declared on 26.11.2009. M. Phil examination in respect of 15 subjects was conducted and out of these subjects result of 09 subjects was declared by the University prior to 22.6.2009. However, petitioner's result was belatedly ff^. declared on 26.11.2009 for no fault on her part and that is why on 26.6.2009 a request letter was written by the University to the PSC apprising it of the entire factuat scenario and requesting to accept the form of all those candidates who had participated in the M.Phil final examination whose results are yet to be declared. Further case of the petitioner is that admit card was issued to her pursuant to which she has been permitted to appear in the written examination. Case of the petitioner is that result of M. Phil examination was declared on 26.11.2009 and therefore for all practical purposes she was qualified to appear in the examination and her candidature cannot be rejected for the fault of the University. 4. Having taken support from a series of decisions of the Supreme Court in various cases, this Court while deciding exactly the same issue in W.P. (S) No. 881/2010 (Jayant Kumar Dhurandhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), W.P. (S) No. 882/2010 (Ku. Nusrat Hashmi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and W.P. (S) 890/2010 (Smt. Deepti Dewangan and others v. Examination Controller and others), has dismissed the stand of the petitioners inter alia on the ground that on the date of filling in the application form or even before the last date fixed for the same, the petitioners were not having the degree of M.Phil which is one of the requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject concerned. Since the issue involved in the case in hand and those decided earlier by this Court is one and the same, no other order than one passed by this Court on 18.10.2010 in the aforesaid three writ petitions, can be passed. 5. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of any substance and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. s l^ -°dsr "•T-^''of^. ss&sa