@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Peu'tion (S) No. 925 of 2009 Petitioner Ramdayal Sonwam‘, S/o Chhots Lal Sonwam', aged about 28 yeam, R/o Village Jhabar, Tehsil Pendra, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Ch‘hawsgah, through Secmtary, Panchayat and Ruml Dévelopment, Mantmlaya, D.K.$. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Chief Executive OEmer, Janpad Panchayat, Mamahi, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Examination Contmller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Boald, Raipur (C.G.) Principal, District Education a11d Training Institute, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihoiri J.) (Passed on this 23rd Day of April, 2009) ORDER 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.1.2008 (AnneXme P/ 1) the petitioner applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade—III. At the time of submission of the application the petitioner waé ar‘stude‘nt of 2n‘i year D.Ed. examination, course. He appeared in the D.Ed. examination on 6.4.2008, the result of which was declared in June, 2008, wherein the petitioner was declaxed as passed in the D.Ed. examination. In spite of mat the petiu'oner was not called for counselling for the post of Shiksha Karmi Gmde—HI. 2. According to theadverlisement, the requisite qualification for appointment to the post’of Shiksha Karmi Grade lll was Higher Secondary Exam pass Certiiicate and D.Ed. passed. It was further prescribed that in the event D.Ed. candidates are not available the other candidates may be considered. Shri J. K. Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn‘ Axvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the lespondent No. 1/ State. 3. Acconiing to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the petiu'oner has completed D.Ed. duxing selecu'on process. Since the examinau'on of D.Ed. was over by the time the examination for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III was held, themfore he was entitled to be called for counseling. He further submits that since it was not prescribed asto when the petitioner should have requisite qualification, the petitioner is enu‘tled to have beneht of D.Ed. examination certincate and he should have been called for counseling. 4. On query asto What is the general principle Whether a candidate must possess requisite qualification either before Eing of the applicau'on or any other tixed date mentioned in the advertisement 'P, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner expressed his inability to give proper reply. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/ State submits that in View of the decision of this Court in w.P.(S) No. 1187 of 2009 (Nisha Choubey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) dated 2nd March, 2009, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 6. This Court in W.P.(S) No. 1187 of 2009 (supra), relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others1 and Dipitimayee Parida Vs. state of Orissa and others? held that “Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, wherein no date was specihed, the candidates must acquire the requisite/qualmcation on the last date of nling of the application.” 7. In view of the foregoing, the petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed, summarily. Satish K. Agnihotrip Thakur Sdl- Judge u. i (2007) 4 SCC S4 2 (2008) 10 SCC 687