'"f"^ Q'?1^ xo°1 ^ r'L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3686 of2008 Petitioners 1. Ku. Preeti Anaudaa, D/o Shri G.J.Anaadan, aged about 25 years, R/o In fiont of YeUow Palace Sakti, District Jaajgir Champa C.G. 2. Ku.ViadIieshwariVaishiiaw,D/oShriR.D. Vaishnaw, aged about 23 years, R/o CSEB Kashi Nagar, Korba East, District Korba C.G. Respondents Versus 1. State of Chbattisgarh, through fhe Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Developiiient, DKS Bhawau, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through ; The Secretary C-168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Zila Panchayat, Jaiygir Champa, through : the Chief Exerdve OfGcer, Janjgir Champa, district Jaajgir Champa (C.G.) The Selection Committee, ZUa Paachayat, Jaiygu- Chainpa (Coiniuittee Coustituted under the provision of Rule 6 for appoiD.tuient of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I & Grade-II) through the Chief Executive Officer, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Chanipa. WRrT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnibotri J.) Shri Rajesh Paodey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Yashwaat Siagh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Aivind Dubey, Paael Lawyer for the respoudent No. 1/State. Shri Paakaj Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on this 30th Day ofApril, 2009) 1. Learaed coi.insel appearing for the petitioners submits fh.at pursuant to the advertisement dated 15. l.2008 (Annexure P/7 & P/8) the petitioners applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. At the tune of submission of the appUcation the petitioners were students of B.Ed. examiaation course. The result of B.Ed. examiaation was declared on 21.5.2008, whereiu the petitioners were declared as passed ia fhe B.Ed. ^ siv^. 1 Thakur exammation. In spite of that the petitioners were not called for counseBiug for the post of Shiksha Kanm Grade-II, fhough they were selected and placed at serial nuinbers 1429 and 1097, respectively. 2. Accordiug to the adverdsenient, the requisite quali&cation for appoiatnient to the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade II was Graduation in second division au.d- B.Ed. passed. It was farther prescribed that iu the event B.Ed. caadidates are not available fhe ofher caadidates iiiay be considered. 3. According to learaed counsel appeariag for the petitioners the petitioners have coinpleted B.Ed. duruig selection proccss. Since the examiaation of B.Ed. was over by the time the examination for the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade II was held, therefore the petitioners were entitled to be caUed for counseluig. He furfher subinits that since it was not prescribed asto when the petitioners should have requisite quaUfication, fhe petitioners are entitled to have benefit of B.Ed. examinationcertificate and they should have been caUed for counseluig. 4. Per contra, learued counsel appearing for fhe respondent No. 1/State subinits that ia view offhe decision offhis Court iu W.P.(S) No. 1187 of 2009 (Nisha Choubey Vs. State of Chhatdsgarh & ofhers) dated 2nd March, 2009, the petitioners are not entiUed for any relief. 5. This Court io. Nisha Choubey (supra), relyiag on fhe decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others1 aad Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa and others2 held fhat "Applyuig fhe weU setfled pmiciples of law to the facts of the present case, whereia. no date was speci&ed, the caadidates niust acqiiire the requisite qualification on tbe last date of filtng of the appUcation. 6. In view of the foregoiag, the petition has no inerit and it is accordiagly dismissed, suumiarily._____- -—-—---- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge ' (2007) 4 SCC 54 2 (2008) 10 SCC 687