9^ys^.^ ^^....•-•""" ^•" ^- ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Jl PETITIONER W.P.fSt N0. f/€3^> /2009 Amita Singh Thakur, D/o Anup Sirigh Thakur, Aged about. 21 years; R/o Irrigation Colony, Qr.No.G-2, South Chakradhar Nagar, Qr.No.G-2, Raigarh- (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1, C.G. Public Service Commission Through - Its Secretary, Shanker Nagar, Marg, Raipur-(C.G.) 2.' Controllers of Exams, C.G. Public Service Commission Through - Its Secretary, Shanker Nagar, Marg,IRaipur-(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PRCIHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIREGTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN 'NIE MATTER Af . AB? ^^ 1'\^1' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETiTION (S) N0.46360F 2QOQ PETiTIONER AmitaSingh Thakur RESPONDENTS Versus C.G. Pubiic Service Commission & Another (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Sndia) Singie Bench: Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Prssent:- Shri Sunif Otwani, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Y.C. Sharma, counselfor the respondents. ORDERfORAU (Passed on this 9th day ofSeptember, 2009) At' Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks quashing of the order dated 17-8-2009 (Annexure - P/1) giassediin respect^the petitioner, by •- the Urid^gS^feSry (Examinatton), Chhattisgarh Pubfic Service y Commission, through Rojgar Aur Niyojan and also prays that ttie petitjoner may be allowed to appear in the main sxamination, which 's gojng to be he!d on 12th & 13th September, 2009. The facts, in nutsheit, as projected by the petilioner, are that the respondent - Chhattisgarh Pubtic Service Commission (for short "ths PSC") issuedan advertisement in the month of September, 2008 inviting appiications for various posts from the eiigible candidates. In {headvertisement, the cut off date for determination of theage of the candidates has been fixed as 1-1-2009, which is evident from Annexure - P/2. The petffioner purehased the appiicatfon form to appear in the preliminary examination from the Postat Department. in the receipt of the application form issued by ttie Postal Department the cut off date has been mentioned as 1-1-2010, w^ich is evident from Annexure - P/3. d _^^3=^S!=='a^s^?t -^) 4. Thereafter.the petitioner applied and appeared in the pretiminar/ examination. She quatified in the said examination. Bsfore calling ttie candidates for main examination, the PSC serutinized the application forms and in that process, the appiication form of the petitioner has been rejected and dectared the petitioner inetigibie to appear in the main examination on the ground that the petiUoner has not atlained the age of 21 years as on 1-1-2009. Thus, this petition. 5. Shri Otwani, learned counsel appearing for frie petitioner, sufamite that after succeeding in the preliminary examination, the PK; deciared the petitioner as ineligible to appear in the main examination on the ground that the petitioner has notattained the age of 21 years as on 1-1-2009 whereas in ttie receipt provided by the Postal Department the cut off date has been flxal as 1-1-2010. The action of the PSC is iilegai, arbitrary and unreasonable. Shri Otwani further submits that due to the InEiction on the part of Ihe PSC, the petltioner witl suffer a great hindrance in the path of advancement of her career. 6. Per contra, Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the PSC, submits that inadvertentty in the receipt issued by the Postal Department at the time of issuance of application form, the cut off date has been mentioned as 1-1-2010. However, when the Etforesakl misfake came into fhe knowledge of the authorities of the PSC by s press release dated 26-9-2008 (Annexure - R/1) the same has baean rectifled as 1-1-2009. Th®PSC requested ttie Postet Department to delete the cut off date i.e. 1-1-2010 from the receipt of the application form. Even the same has also been published in the various newsoaoers as also uoloaded in the website of the PSC, which is evident from Annexures - R/2 & W3. The cul off dat®i.e. 1-1-2009 :^'^VW^'~^'^-^'-lsSr s3teS&(ait^*W?IS;5H?33»pU4aAfL(•Nlil.iln55tSEk4u'^-^=^^~l ,y.^ a. ^ "B "., ^ 8. A< %) Gowri has been fixed by the PSC after foliowing due process of law and as per the Rules and Reguiations and the PSC never intends to change the cut offdate i.e. from 1-1-2009 and 1-1-2010. 1 have heard learned counset appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documente appended thereto. Admittedly in the advertisement issued by the PSC, the cut off date~for determination ofthe age ofthe candidates has been fixed as 1-1-20C®and on the basis of that the petitioner purehased the application form. Though in the receipt issued by the Postel Department, the cut off date has wrongly been mentioned as 1-1-2010, the PSC immediately took necessary steps for making necessary corrections with regard to cut off date through various means viz. press release, website, etc. Ths petitioner has applied before the PSC as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement oniy and not on V basis of the receipt issued by the Posta] Department, therefore, she cannot take the advantage of one mistake committed by the PSC as her right If there is any typographicai error/clerical mistake, the PSC has every right to correct the same well within the stipuiated period and the same has been done. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no iilegaiityor infirmity in declaring the candidature of the petitfoner as ineiigibleon the ground of under aaei.e. betow 21 vears as on 1-1-2009. The same is just, proper and warranting no interference by this Court. In the resuit. the petition is iiable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihorii Judge