S .S-'; tf' ' iSbE' :;ISS9, S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Divjslon^ench L Appellant Petitioner RssDondenjs RespQncjents HQn'ble^Shri Dhirendra Mlshra. & Hon'ble^Shri R.N. Chandrakar, «U Writ Appeal No. 400 of 2010 Jayant Kumar Dhurandhar, son of Shri YS Dhurandhar, aged about 39 years, resident of Laxmi Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -Versus- 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Examination Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. i 4. Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, through its Registrar, University Campus, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Present: Mr. Amrito Das, counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Mr. AS Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Mr. YC Sharma with Ms. Morisa Kshatriya, counsel for the Public Service Commission. EB2 Per Dhirendra Mishra, J ORALJUDGMENT (8tnMareh,2011) In responss to advertisement (Annexure P/3) for the post of Assistant Professor issued by Public Service Commission (in short "PSC"), the petitioner submitted his application within the stiputated time. As_per advertisement, the applicant should hold requisite educational qualification bn or before the date flxed for submitting application, Any educational qualification pbtained after the cut off date was not ac(»ptable.The petitioner submitted his applicationbefore 22.6.2009, the last date for submissionof application. •, 2. Case of the petitioner befors the learned Singte Judge was that he appeared in the examination conducted by respondent No.4/Univereity for atg^cCTCsstaa- fSs^n:3:s=-,!r'.-~'':'S-SSS^-!IS-'.:i:''.:.'^.-/•S&S^1^W:;r:i: °''r";'*'-!rils'?';'%S»S5;5':;'.ii^-SSS&'-Ls-'-;.' ''-L-: Si-:£~^:^^V.SK^&i^•i£^S5;s?:-^^^§ :£;si'" M.Phil course on 20.4.2009, however, results of the examination were not declared until 26.11.20(8. The petitioner and othere had approached respondent No.4 to declare the results in time so that they are not excluded from participating in the selection process and the Registrar of respondent No.4, vide his Memo dated 26.6.2009, requested the PSC to accept the applications of those, who have appeared in M.Phil annual examination and whose results are awaited. Accordingly, the petitioner and others were permitted to appear in the selection process. Result of the M.Phil. examination was declared on 26.11.2009. Thereafter, PSC conducted examination on 29.11.2009 when the petitioner stood qualified for the post. While conducting written test on 29.11.200S, no declaration was sought as to whether the petitioner has obtained essential qualiflcation. However, the PSC, vide notice dated 2.2.2010, directed all the candidates, who appeared in the seiection examination, to submit a deelaration regarding their sducational qualification and the petitioner submitted his duly filled in declarationalong with provisional certificate of M.Phil. The petrtioner filed writ petition and prayed for direction to the PSC not to reject candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that he has submitted his M.Phil. certificate after 22.6.2009 and further direction to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview. 3. Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appeltantsubmits that the conditions enumerated in the note appended to Clause (3) of the advertisement of Annexure P/3 is contrary to the State Service Examination Rules, notified in the Official Gazette ofthe State, as the samehas no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. The condition is also contrary to Rute 5(b), Note-1 of the State Service Examination Rules, whichcleariy stipulates that the candidates, who have appeared in the qualifying examination or who intend to appear in such examination, by which they would be educationally qualified for the post, would also be eligible to appear in the preiiminary examination with a condition that they have to produce requisite certificate along with their application for the main examination. He further submits thst though the services, for which State Service Examination Rules have been made, do not include the post of Assistant Professor, however, fixing of cut off date for requisiteeligibility qualification as the date of filing application, is arbitrary, and the candidates, who have otherwise obtained the prescribed qualification before the. main examination, carinot be excluded from participating in the selection process. y "~~.-:'^';'t.' -^ In the instant case, the petitioner and others were permitted to participate in the selection examination as they had already appeared in the M.Phil. examination and their results were awaited. Since then the petitioner passed M.Phii. examination on 26.11.2009 i.e. before the main examination was conducted by the PSC on 29.11.2009. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualiflcation on the date of filing application. 4. On the other hand, Mr. AS Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State and Mr. YC Sharma with Ms. Morisa Kshatriya, tearned counsel forthe PSC, have supported the impugned order. 5. Indisputably, the last date for submission of application forms was fixed as 22.6.2009. The note appended to Clause (3) of the advertisement cleariy mentioned that the eligibility qualification should be obtained on or before the date of filing application. The petitioner pass6d M.Phil. examination on 26.11.2009 and he was permitted to participate in the preliminary examination. 6. Learned Single Judge, considering the conditions in the note under Clause (3) of the advertisement and after refemng to the binding judgments of the Supreme Court, held that the petitioner cannot be altowed to participate in the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement of Annexure P/3. Contention of the petitioner that the condition of the impugned note is contrary to Clause 5ofthe State Service Examination Rules and as such, arbitrary and unreasonable, cannot also be accepted as the petitioner having participated in theselection process in response to the advertisement issued by the PSC, cannot now be permitted to assail the condition of the impugned note on the ground that the same was inconsistent to the examination rules of the PSC. 7. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are in entire agreement with the reasonings of the learned Single Judge that oh the date c* flling application or before the last date fixed for it, the petitioner was not having the degree of M.Phil. and therefore, he did not possess the requisite qualification for the post Qf Assistant Professor in the subject concerned as per conditions 6f the advertisement. We flnd no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- ;! l ' ' Sd/- . Dhirendra Mishra ••'{ ^ RJS. Chandrakar Judge \ \ — Judge H mtilttiit-i: