S§§£QL£ 35E§§§ 1N THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTIscARH AT BILA'spUR (cc; ' ‘ wig” WNo PS I r/ ' ,. Sahtdsh‘Kumar Naik Aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Hetra-m Nayak,RC/o‘ Village 'Badejavvat’ol'i‘ Post Naharpali District Raigarh(C.G.) ‘ ETITIo‘NVEr VERSUS RESP .1. F’yState of chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, MantralayaV, Raipur (CG) Pt Ravi Shankar Shukla University Through the Registrar Raipur (C.G.) ’ Chhattisgarh State Public Serilic'e Commission, Through the Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.). \ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS - ARTICULARS OF THE PErrrIONER: I . As stated above in the cause title. f \} 1 PR ONDENTS: ' . J P HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5925 of 2010 PETITIONER Santosh Kumar Naik VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh and others Post for pronouncement of order on é7.10.2010 Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge RESPONDENTS a \x HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5925 of 2010 PETITIONER Santosh Kumar Naik VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others Shri Saurabh Jain, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai, PL for respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (z? .10.2010) Though the matter is listed at the motion stage, with the consent of the parties, it is heard and disposed of finally. 2. Grievance ofthe petitioner in this petition is that though he has been permitted to appear in the written examination conducted by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short the ‘PSC’) on 29m November, 2009 for the post of Assistant Professor (Law), he is not likely to be permitted to appear in the interview to be held in future. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 20.5.2009 (Annexure P- 3) an advertisement was issued by the PSC for the posts of Assistant Professor in 32 subjects including that of Law. Pursuant to this advertisement the petitioner had filled in his form before the last date fixed for the same i.e. 22.06.2009 but as the result of his M. Phil. Examination for the Academic Session 2008-09 could not be ‘ declared by the University in time, he may be deprived of appearing ” in the interview. According to the case of the petitioner, his M. Phil, examination was held in the month of April 2009 i.e. prior to the publication of advertisement byithe PSC of various subjects ,.including law but his result waéédeclared on 26.11.2009. M. Phil examination in respect of 15 subjects was conducted and out of these subjects result of 09 subjects was declared by the University / , I -2- prior to 22.6.2009. However, petitioner’s result was belatedly declared on 26.11.2009 for no fault on his part and that is why on 26.6.2009 a request Ietter was written by the University to the PSC apprising it of the entire factuai scenario and requesting to accept the form of all those candidates who had participated in the M.Phil tinal examination whose results are yet to be declared. Further case of the petitioner is that admit card was issued to him pursuant to which he has been permitted to appear in the written examination. Case of the petitioner is that resuit of M. Phil examination was declared on 26.11.2009 and therefore for all practical purposes he was qualified to, appear in the examination and his candidature cannot be rejected for the fault of the University. 4. Having taken support from a series of decisions of the Supreme Court in various cases, this Court while deciding exactly the same issue in W.P. (S) No. 881/2010 (Jayant Kumar Dhurandhar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), WIP; (S) No. 882/2010 (Ku. Nusrat Hashmi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and W.P. (S) 890/2010 (Smt. Deepti Dewangan and others v. Examination Controller and others), has dismissed the stand of the petitioners inter alia on the ground that on the date of filling in the application form or even before the last date fixed for the same, the petitioners were not having the degree of M.Phil which is one of the requisite qualincations for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject concerned. Since the issue involved in the case in hand and those decided earlier by this Court is one and the same, no other order than‘to‘ one passed by this Court on 18.10.2010 in the aforesaid three writ petitions, can be passed. 5. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of substance and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as sgch/V—I Prit'mke" Diw Judge // Sdi- aker /