gs HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5994 of 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Aika Agrawai VERSUS RESPONDENTS , State of Chhattisgarh and others Post for pronouncement of order on Q2.10.201O Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 5994 of 2010 PETITIONER Smt Al ka Agrawal ate f Chhattisgarh and others RESPONDENTS St o Shri H. B. Agwal, Iearned Sr. counsel with Mi Prag Singh for the pitioner. Shri Viek Sh. PL for respondnt No.1/Sta. Shi Y.C. haa couel for respondents 2 and 3. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (17.10.2010) Heard on admission. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though she ben permitted t appar in the written emination codted by Chhattgah Public Service Commiion (for sho the ‘PS’) on 29‘“ " Nvmber, 2009 or th post of“ Assistant rofessor (Psyco), she is not Iikel t be permitted appear i the intview to be held in future. ccording to the petitioner the cut off date i.e. 2.06.2009 for acquiring requisite qualification fixed by the SC is illegal d arbitrary d in fact it should have een either last dy of the ear of advertisement or 2.02.010 as per notification Ane Facts of the case in brief are that on 20 5 2009 (Annexure P- 1) an advertisement was Issued by the PSC for the posts of Assrstant Professor In 32 subjects Including that of Psychology Pursuant to this advertisement the petitioner had filled in her form before the last date fxed for the same Ie 22 06 2009 but as the result of his M Phil Examination for the Academic Sessron 2008 09 could not be declared by the Unrversrty In time her name has been has e o 'e xa nuc isr ss rt C oe f e P holgy y o to n er A 2 P an an b a y 02 nxure P-4. 3. VERSUS ra ss ya et v arma e te r Srm ns ' (D (77 _2- included in the list of ineligible candidates. According to the case of the petitioner, her M. Phil examination was held in the month of April 2009 i.e. prior to the publication of advertisement by the PSC of various subjects including Psychology but her result was declared on 20.1 1 .2009. 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), W.P. (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 qualifications 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 identical, no other order except the one passed by this Court on 18.10.2010 in the aforesaid three writ petitions, can be passed. So far as the argument advanced by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the cut off date i.e. 22.06.2009 tixed by the PSC is illegal and arbitrary is concerned, the petitioner has utterly failed to establish as to how the cut off date-so fixed by the PSC is illegal and arbitrary. While advancing his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Prit Singh v. S. K. Mangal and others reported in 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 714. Since fixing the cut off date is entirely the prerogative of the authority conducting the examination and by so doing some persons or the other who have acquired the qualification after the cut off date fixed by it, are bound to suffer but it does not mean that the cut off date should be fixed as per the choice of the “candidate like the petitioner In this View of the matter the case Cited by the petitioner being entirely on different footing, Is not applicable - Q -3__ to the case in hand. Thus according to the considered opinion ofthis Court the PSC was fully justmed in fixing the cut off date as 22.06.2009 and the same does not require any sort of interference by this§Court 5. Resultantiy, the petition being devoid of substance is not worthy of admission and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker Judge