G^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETSTION (S) N0. 6029pf2007 Dr. Prakash Chandra Prasad, S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, aged about 26 years, R/o village Shahpur, Tah. Kusmi (Samri), P.S. Kusmi, Distt. Sarguja (CG). Versus 1. The Secretary (Examinafion), Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (CG). 2. Siate of Chhattisgarh, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh. Raipur (CG). 3. Dr. Narendra Kunjam, S/onbt know, age about 25 years, present R/o Government Ayurvedic Medicai Coliege, Raipur (CG). OfVrit petition under ArticSe 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Mr. D. Minj, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, counse! for the respondent No.1. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyerfor the State. ORDER fORAU passed on ttils 26tl*day ofJune, 2009) 2) Heard iearned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seefes the foliowing reliefs : 8.1 That. issue the writ of mandamus in the form of appropriate order directing the respondent to cali the petitioner for interview, which is commencing between 24-9-2007 and 29-9-2007. 8.2That, issue the writ of mandamus in favour of petitioner and against the respondent No.1 & 2 in the form of order directing the respondent to keep one seat reserve for interview for the petitioner. 8.3That issue the writ of mandamus in the form of stav order directing the respondsnt No.1 & 2 to cancel the adverlisement and fresh advertisement may be issued. 8.4That, issue any other writ in the Torm of order which this Hon'bie Curt may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interestofjustice. "& ^7 Oj^ 3) According to the learned counse! appearing for the petitioner, on 20-9-2006, the responden ublic Service Commission pubiished an advertisement for appointment on the post of Ayurved Medical Officer. The petitioner appiied for the same, but the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on 7-8-2007 on the ground that on the iast date of submission of application form the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification. Learned counse! submits that the isst date for submission of the application form was 28-10-2CB6 and on the said date the petitioner has obfained the requisite quaiification. The application <rf the petitloner has been rejected wifhout considering the representaiions made by the pstitioner. 4) I have heard iearned counsel appearing for the parUes, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. in column 10 (c) of the advertisement, it has been very specificaliy mentionsd that before the !ast date of submission of the application i.e. 28-10-2006 fche candidate must possess the requiste quaiification certificate. Ths petitioner has fited the copy of internship certificate as Annexure - P/7. On perusal of the said certificate, It appears that the same has been issued by ihe Prineipa!, Govt. Ayun/edic College & Hospital, Gwaiior on 30-10-2006 whereas ttie last date for submission of the application form \vas 28-10-20W. Therefore, it cannof be said that the petitioner has obtamed the tntemship certificate as on 28-10-2005. The rejection order passed by the respondenyPublic Servtee Commission, in respect ofthe petitionsr, isjust & proper and the same does not warrani any interference. 5) This C-ourt !R N'shs Choubey vs. Sfate of ChhatSisgarh & Othsrs , on the decisions of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others and Dipitimayee Parida vs. State of Orissa and Others3 heid that "appiysng ff»wel! ssWed piincipies i^law to the facts of the present case, whsrsn no efefe wss speoified, ffw candklates must acqusre the requisite quaiification on the last date of ff/mg 6) !n view of forsgoing, the accordingiy dismissed. No order passed eariier stands vacafed. petition has no merit and It is costs. Consequently, interim order Sd/- Satish K. Judge >;n 1WP(S)No.1187 of 2009 2{2Q07)4SCC54 3 (2008)103cc 687