puu "N ^ L' •K,'® s^ il5t;M" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WiitPetitiQn (S)_ilo,3653 of 2008 Petitioners 1. Rakesh Kuinar Sao, S/o Shri Ainrit Lal Sao, ^ed about 26 years, R/o Q. No. F-858 CSEB, Korba, West Dam, District Korba (C.G.) 2. Miss Shweta Yadav, D/o Shri B.C.Yadav, aged about 29 years, R/o Balco Township, Korba, Dtetrict Korba (C.G.) 3. Rudramani Tiwari, S/o Bisram Prasad Tiwari, aged about 27 years, R/o Q. No. D- 289 Annapuraa VUiar, H.T.P.P.Colony, CSEB Korba, West, District Korba (C.G.) 4. Sm.t. Punam. Sharma, W/o Shri Praniod Sharma, aged about 30 years, R/o S.E.C.L. Gevera, District Korba (C.G.) 5. Sushil Kiuiiar Gupta, S/o Shri Uiiiasbankar Gupta, aged about 23 years, R/o Tulsi Nagar Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 6. Suiul Gupta, S/o Slui UinashaTikaT Oupta, aged about 30 years, R/o Dewaagaa MohaUa, Purani Basti, Korba, Distdct Korba (C.G.) 7. SunU Kumar Rathore, S/o Shri T.R. Rathore, aged about 27 years, R/o at Post Gatora, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 8. Ku. Prattbha Sihani, D/o Harichanran Sihani, aged about 23 years, R/o Kaveri Vihar, N.T.P.C. Jaauupali, Korba, District Korba(C.G.) 9. Prashaat Siagh Rajput, S/o Shivrantan Singh, aged about 25 years, R/o H.T.P.P. Colony, Darri, Distdct Korba (C.G.) 10. Mahendra Kutnar Dewangaxi, S/o Itwari Lal Dewaugan, aged about 28 years, R/o ViUage-Churi, Jamnipali, Distorict Korba (C.G.) Respondents Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretaiy, Departnient of Panchayat aud Rural Development, DKS Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) Chbatdsgarh Professional ExamiTiation Board Through : The Secretary C-168, Tagore Ne^ar, Raipur (C.G.) Zila Paachayat, Korba, through : the Chief Exertive OfBcer, Korba, district Korba (C.G.j The Selection Coiiunittee, Zfla Paacbayat, Korba (Conuiiittee Constituted under the provision of Rule 6 for appointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I & Grade-II) througb the Chief Executive OfBcer, Korba Distnct Korba. ^i%1', - ..rf<»' -V WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB; Hon'ble Shri. Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Rajesh Paadey, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Yashwaat Siugh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Arvuid Dubey, Paael Lawyer for ftie respondent No. l/ State. Shri Paakaj Aganval, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDE R (Passed on fhis 30th Day ofApril, 2009) Leamed counsel appearing for fhe petitiouers subinits fhat pursuant to fhe advertisement dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P/27 & P/28) fhe petitioners applied for fhe post of Shiksha Kanni Grade-II. At the time of subitussion of the appUcation the petitioners were students ofB.Ed. examination course. The result of B.Ed. examiaation was declared on 21.5.2008, wherein the petitioners were declared as passed ia fhe B.Ed. examiuation. In spite of that the petitioners were not called for counseUing for the post of Shiksha Kanni Grade-II, though fhey were selected aad placed at serial numbers 46, 1, 52, 427,190,1632,3323,47, 45, aad 174, respectively. Accordiug to the adverdsement, fhe requisite qualification for appoiutment to tiie post of Shiksha Kanni Grade II was Graduation in second divfeion aud B.Ed. passed. It was further prescribed that ia the event B.Ed. caadidates are not avaUable the ofher caadidates inay be considered. Accordiag to leamed counsel appeariag for fhe petitioners fhe petitioners have couipleted B.Ed. during selection process. Siace fhe examination of B.Ed. was over by fhe tiane fhe examination for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II was held, therefore fhe petitioners were entifled to be called for counseluig. He further subinits fhat since it was not prescribed asto when the petitioners should have requisite quaUfication, the petitioners are entifled to have benefit of B.Ed. examiaation certt&cate aad they should have been called for coiuiseUng. "S-, Thakur Per contora, leamed counsel appeariag for (he respondent No. 1/State submits that ia view offhe decision ofthis Court ia W.P.(S) No. 1187 of 2009 (Nisba Choubey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers) dated 2nd March, 2009, the petitioners are not entifled for any reUef. This Court ia Nisha Choubey (supra), relying on fhe decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court ia Ashok Kunaar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others1 aad Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa and others2 held that "Applyiag the weU setUed pruiciples of law to the facts of the present case, wherein no date was specified, fhe candidates m.ust acquire the requisite quaUfication on the last date of filmg of the application." In view of the foregoiag, fhe petition has no inerit and it is accordiagly dismissed, summarily. ! — Satish K. Agnihotri Judge