HIOH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WritPetition (S) No. 699 gf 2009 Petitioner Ajay KumarJangde,S/oShriManharanLal Jao.gde, s^ed about 21 years, R/o Vinage Amaldih, P.0. Tundri, ViaBiIa^arh, Raipur Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretaiy, Panchayat and Rural Developinent, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawau, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Executive Officer, Jaupad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distt, Raipur (C.G.) Examlnation GonteQUer, Chhattisgarh Professiouat Examiuation Board, Raipur (C.G.) Principal, District Education aad Tramiiig Institute,Shaukar N^ar, Raipur (C.G.) WRrT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHB GONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. AgnihotnJ.) Ms Meena Shastri, Advocate for ftie peti.ti.oiier. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Depuly Advoeate General with Shri Areind Dubey, PMICI Lawycr for the respoudent No.l/State. ORDER '.:. • : :..; -;,; ' (Passed on tliis 30ttl D^r ofApril, 2009) LearD.ed Counsel appearing for the petitkuier subiiuts | fhat puisuant toth.eadvertiseiuentdatBd 12.1.2008 (Annexure P/l) fhe petitioner applied for fhe post df SIuksha Karmi Grade-III.At fbe time of submission of the appUeatioii the petitioner was a student of 2nd year D.Ed. exaimaation coiurse. He appeared ia the D.Ed. exatEtmation on 6.4.2008, the result ofwhich was declared ui June, 2008, wherein the petitioner was declared as passed in the D.Ed. exanuna.tion. In spite of thatthe petiticinerwas not catled for coiuiseBing forthe post of Shiksha Kanni Gfade-III. Accordiug to fhe advertisemeiit, the requiisite qMalificatiote for appointnient to the post of Sluksha Karmi Grade IIIi was Higher Secondaiy Exain pass Gertifi.cafe aud D.Ekl. passed.It ^. was furfher prescnbed that ia fhe eventD.Ed. candidates are not avaOable the ofher candidates may be considered. 3. Accordiag to leamed counsel appeanng for the petitioner fhe petitioner has completed D.Ed. during selection process. Since the examiaation ofD.Ed. was overby the tune the exami&ation for the post of Shiksha Karml Grade III was held, fherefore he was entitled to be catled for coiuisclmg. He further submite that suice it was not prescribed asto when the petitioner should havereqiusite qualtficati.pn, ihe petitioner is entitled to have benefit of D.Ed. exainination certi&cate and he shduld have been called for cQunseltag. 4. Per cqntra, learaed counsel appeanng for fhe respondent No. 1/State submits fhat m view of the decision ofttus Court ia W.P.(S) No. 1187 of 2009 (Nisha Choubey Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ofhers) dated 2nd March, 2009, fhe petitioner is not entitled for aay relief. 5. TUis Court ia Nisha Ghoubey (supra), rBlying on fhe decisiori of HonTale Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar V8. Uaton of India and, others1 and Dlpltimayee Parida Vs. State of Ottssa. and others2 held that "Applying the we]I setfled prixiciples of law to the facts of the present case, whcrein. no date was specified, tlue caadidates inust acquire fhc !requisite qualiBcation pn fhe la^t date offiling ofthfi applicatfon." 6. In view ofthe foregoing, fhe petition has no inerit aiid it is accordlngly disiiussed, sumiuarily. _ ; Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotrij Thakur l Jud8e 1 (2007) 4 SCC 54 2 (2008) 10 SCC 687