^^ OF Pstjiloners Respondents 1.' Ravinsdra iKumar Pant, s/o. Shri Anand Sai Pant, 21 years, r/o. VIJiage Bharridand, Tehsi! MapA'ahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). Komal Slngh-Pendro, s/o. Shri Slngh. Pendro,' aged 19 years, r/o. viiiage - Jhabar, Tahsii, Penldra, DJstt. Bilaspur (CG). Krishna Kumar Kashyap, s/o. Shri Santram Kashyap, 26 years, r/o, Patgwan, Tehsil Pendra, Distt. Biiaspur (CG). Versus State' of Chhattisgarh, Ihrough Secretary, Panchayat ;• and .Rurai Development, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bha-wan, Ralpur (CG). 2, Chief Executive Offlcer, Janpad Panchayat, Biiha, Distt. Bi-laspur (CG). 3. Examinatlon Controller, Chhattisgarh Professionaj Examlnatlon Board, Raipur<CG). 4) Prindpai, Dlstrict . Educatlon and Tralnlng institute, RaJpur-(CG)/ (Writ Petltion under ArtlcSe 226/227 of Constitutlon of india) SB: Hon'ble jVlr..Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Eieseni: . IVIr. JX. Shastri, Advocate forthe petjtloners. Mr,. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER. on this 20th dayof '. • . Learned counse! for the petltioners submits that the were not In possesslon of D.Ed. examinatlcn at the time of filing of.an application. The ia.st date for filing of the application for the post of Shiksha Karmj Grade Jli was 9-2-2008. The requisite •quallficatlon 'for appointment to the. of Shiksha Karml Grade.lli is Higher Secondary Schooi Examination and D,Ed. it is further prescribed that in the event D.Ed, c.andldates-are not appiicabie, the other may be considered. Accordlng.to Mr-.'J.K. Shastri, the have compieted D.Ed., during 'C- c: -selection process.. Learned counsei further that since it is. not prescribed asto when. the petltioners should have requlsite qyaiiflcatlon, the are to have of D.Ed. examinatlon^certlficate as it produced at tne time of intervlew.. St is further a simiiar Issue is pending consideration. 2) .On'query asto Is the generai.prindpie whether a must possess qualiflcation fiiJng of the or any fixed date mentloned in the advertlsemeny? .counsei appearing for the petitioners is unable to give-proper rapiy. lln para 42 ofthe advertlsementfor the of Shlksha Karmi III (Annexure P/1), it was that on obtaining.the marks of test, iist of D^Ed., candldates 'and Non-D£d. be prepared, Tne quaiiflcation as required as a of generar princlple should be at the tlme of flSlng of the appilcation for the post of Shlksha Karml Grade ili. 3) The question asto what shouid be the cut-off In .of any date.speclfied, in thls behaif eltherjn the or 'in the reference is. no .longef^s' Hon'bie'lhe Syprerne Court Inthe matter. of. Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of {ndaa and others1 observed as under: ''5S20. Possession of requisite educationai js mandatory. The same shouid not be uncertaln. If an vncercajnty is to prevali,.the not be fiooded with applicatjons of ineilglble A cut-off of date. for the of determinlng the eiigiblllty of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any ruie or any, speclflc .having been . in the advertisement, the iaw, therefore, as' heid by this Court wouid tast date for the application." 4) . In the matter Vs. of othersz . Hon'ble the supreme Court, held that "ordlnarily thei qualification or extra -(2007) 4 SCC 54 2 (2 008). 10 SCC 687 1 I.E Raju L, quailfication iaid down for the Tecruitment shouid be considered as on the iast . datefor fiiing ofthe appiication". : • 5) Appiylng the weii principles of iaw to the of the case, whereln no specified, the must the .•requlslte quaiificatlon on the iast of fliing ofthe application. The djd not D.Ed. qualificatjon at time. Accordingly, the In the D.Ed s'No?\ 6) Forthe reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petltlon has no merit and is accordingly dlsmissed summarily; Sd/- i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge "^