't '^. s, ;^..<i .'"% u>, HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3688 of2008 Petitioners 1. 2. Versus Respondents 1. 2. 4. Miikesh Kuinar Mishra, S/o Sbri Banshi Lal Mishra, aged about 25 years, R/o Behiud Ayurvedic Hospital, Seepat Road Sarkanda, District Bflaspur C.G. Sewak Rani Rafhore, S/o Sbri Sohaa Lal athoie, aged about 22 years, R/o VUlage Putpura, Post lihokhra, District Jaajgir Champa C.G. State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough the Secretary, Departaient of Pacichayat aad Rural Developnient, DKS Bhavvaa, Raipur (C.G.) CUiattisgarh Professional Exainination Board Through : The Secretaiy C-168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Zila Paachayat, Sui^uja, fhrough : the Chief Exertive Officer, Surgiija, district Suiguja (C.G.) The Selection Coinnuttee, Zila Panchayat, Siuguja (Coiniaittee Constituted under fhe provision of Rule 6 for appointinent of Shiksha Kanni Grade-I & Grade-II) fhrough the Chief Executive Ofi&cer, Surguja, District Suiguja. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri J.) Shri Rajesh Paadey, Advocate for ffae petitionere. Shri Yashwaat Siagh Thakur, Depuly Advocate General wifh. Shri. Arviad Dubey, Panel Lawyer for tbe respondent No. 1/State. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for fhe respondent No.2. O R D BR (Passed on this 30th Day ofApril, 2009) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners subinits that pursuaat to the adverdseinent dated 15. l.2008 (Aiuiexure P/6 & P/7) the petitioners appUed for fhe post of Shiksba Kanni Grade-II. At fhe time of submission of fhe application fhe petitioners were students of B.Ed. examination course. The result of B.Ed. exaiiunation was declared on 21.5.2008, wherein fhe petitioners were declared as passed in the B.Ed. exaniiaation. In spite of fhat fhe petitioners were not called for coTuiseUuig for fhe post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, though fhey were selected and placed at serial num.bers 47 aud 251, respectively. 2. According to fhe advertiseinent, the requisite quaUfication for appoiatment to fhe post of Shlksha Kanni Grade II was Graduation ia second divfeion and B.Ed. passed. It was further prescribed fhat in. the event B.Ed. caudidates are not available fhe other caadidates xnay be considered. 3. According to leamed counsel appearuug for fhe petitioaers fhe petitioners have coinpleted B.Ed. during selection process. Sfaice the examiuation of B.Ed. was over by the time flie examiaation for fhe post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II was held, fh.erefore fhe petitioners were entitled to be caUed for couiiseluig. He further subinits fhat siuce it was not prescribed asto when the petitioners should have requisite qualt&cation, fh.e petitioners are entitled to have benefit of B.Ed. examiaation certificate and fhey should have been called for counseUng. 4. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondent No. 1/State subniits fhat iu view ofthe decision offhis Court ia W.P.(S) No. 1187 of 2009 (Nisha Choubey Vs. State of Chliattisgarh & ofhers) dated 2nd March, 2009, fhe petitioners are not entitied for aay reUef 5. This Court in Nisha Choubey (supra), relying on the decision of Hon>ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others1 and Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa and others2 held that "Applying fhe weU setfled principles of law to the facts of the present case, wherein no date was spectfied, fhe caadidates inust acquire fhe requisite quali&cation on the last date offiUng offhe application. -6. In view of the foregoiiig, the petition has no aierit aad it is accordiagly dismissed, sumiaarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Thakur JudfiC 1 (2007) 4 SCC 54 2 (2008) 10 SCC 687