w '.»'«%l, liiSi^ifei, lt^i^Bt&!^ ^vv-' [-HG—78 <1W?(T tbHKh ~yst ^WM^, ^wiwi'c, hvfwy. ...LO..,.A......^.o,.2.JdL^? w SII^?ITR^ (1i?f3^?l) ss^t ^i R-fi^i ?TSTi 3^TIct?Tg^N) TOTWgfel OT^t MIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILAOI-UK Coram: Hon' ble Shi Hon'bleShi Writ Appeal Appellant Petitioner Respondents Vs. 1. '*l<<ll'l4!-f IWRff tf 'fB1^ <F3]«rl< ^ 3jfin 3ii^?i i Dhirendra Mishra, & fi R.N. Chandrakar, JJ LNo. 241 of 2009 (Appeal under Section 2 (i) ofth^ Division Bed Present: Shri S.R.Sinha, counselfol Shri Vinay Harit, Dy.Advoc^te Ora (Passed on this 3r. Prakash Chandra Prasad, s/o. Shri Rajendra Prasad, aged about 26 /ears, r/o. village Shahpur, Tah. ^usmi (Samri), P.S. Kusmi, Dist. Burguja (CG). ~he Secretary (Examination), ;hhattisgarh Public Service ;ommission, Shankar Nagar Road, ?aipur (CG). ~he State of Chhattisgarh through the ^inisiry of Home Affairs, Government ^f Chhattisgarh, Raipur(CG). 3r. Narendra Kunjam, s/o. not know, aged about 25 years, present r/o. Sovernment Ayurvedic Medical :;ollege, Raipur (CG). Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to lch) Act, 2006.) r the appellant. General for the State. Order 21st August, 2009) HSWIf-v---! =F XI-HG—78 sn^i ^i R-ii<* W 3^1 Sflliqi '3^ r<11<<ICT4|, ©ttl'H'Ko,[q<rll'Hti< WWITai*(IO» "^200 sv^v Tra^? (licit^«i^t!i) TRIIW Tife snt?i - 2-- Per DHi^yiidra Mishra, J. This writ appeal is directejJ passed in Writ Petition (S) No.| preferred by the petitioner has bj fhat it cannot be said that the ri certificate as on 28-10-2006. respondent/Public Service Commf the petitioner is just and proper| interference. From perusal of the pleadii(gs the petitioner applied for the pos application of the petitioner was ground that he does not possesi On 28-9-2007 interim order was the respondent/Public Service petitjoner to appear in the intervi] However, the petition was finally the ground that the petitioner Clause 10(c) (whicti should h^ advertisement as he did not poj qualifieation on the last date i.e., him was issuedtothe petitioner Learned counsel for the ap| already appeared in the examinati^n passed in his favour by this against the order dated 26-6-2009 p029 of 2007, whereby the petition feen dismissed and it has been held ^etitioner has obtained the internship [The rejection order passed by the fssion (for short, "PSC") in respect of |and the same does not warrant any diU COltf \ <;M<l(<?l4[1 ^ifH^ ^f fST3t <pif'(^f< ^T3ffipT3nta in the writ petition, it appears that )^t of Ayurvedic Medical Officer. The r^jected by the respondenVPSC on the the requisite qualification certificate. ^assed in favour of the petitioner and Ct'mmission was directed to allow the 'i^w as a special case on 29-9-2007. [dismissed by the impugned order on not fulfill the criteria mentioned in |ve been Clause 10 (b) ) of the isess the requisite certificate of the ?8-10-2006 and the certificate filed by on 30-10-2006. lellant submits that the appellant has on the strength ofthe interim order t, however, his result.has not been otily D( Xl-HC—78 s-'^l -ii^-:"i'<!7 ®fli'(-II"S.f'.lnll*-^ ^o.A. NO.^^\, T"<!; 'SW W Ot Raj" y^'wK ( <W WS" S"T, 9TOfepiN~intRff <r f3%t nw^ff ^r3i!ma'^! declared and the respondenyPSC ought not to have rejected the application of the petitjoner o^ technical ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite certi post. icate on the last date for applying to the counsel for the petitioner, perused the perused the Clause 10(b) of the We have heard leamed impugned order and also advertisement which clearly mbntions that certificates with respect to the educational qualification, opinion fhat the learned singl^ experienoe ete., of all the candidates, necessary for the corresponc(ing post and the requisite experience certificate should be compulso^-ily produced on the last date for filing of theapplication. In view ofthe above corldition in the advertisement, we are ofthe Judge has rightly held that the rejection order passed by the respondent/PSC in respect of the petitioner is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference. We find no substance in this writ appeal and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^: Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge