p.R.ttn- pres ^.^^^- £ .R:?^^h'^%l^^- iresen161'-* ""•^o^'..1^-1-^"' Aata'6——"" s^m^ "EIICK PETITIONER IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR W.P.(S)No. °^tf /2011 Harsh Pandey S/o Late Shri S.L.Pandey, aged about 36 years, R/o Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ^SPONDENTS .1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Higher Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Dista-ict - Raipur (C.G.) 2. 0-ihattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur Through - its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Cormnission, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA V /' 1] PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (S): As stated above in the cause title. 2] FARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT (S): As stated above m the cause title. 3] FARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE ORDER(S) AGAINST, WHICH THE FETITION IS MADE SUBJECT MATTER IN BRIEF 'J •li«i ^ HIGHCQURTOFQiHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETmON (S) No. 984 of2011 Harsh Pandey. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Another. WRIT PETmON U~NDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OE INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri. J, Present: Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondentNo. I. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 18til day of February, 2011) 1. At the very outset, leamed eounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved herein is asto whether a candidate having passed the National Education Test (for short 'the NET') is entitled to be considered for selection, though tiie required certificate was not in his possession before the last date ofmaking application. The said issue came up for consideration befbre this Court in Shv'eta Pandey v. State ofChhattisgark & Others^, Ram Ashish Shrivastav & Others v. State of ChhaWsgarh & Anfftheji and thereafter, in Raj Kumar Tandan v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another . Thus, the instant petition is squarely covered by the decisions ofthis Court in the aforestated cases. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for ttie State/respondent No. 1 does not controvert the above submissiou ' Wj:l.(S)No. 5297/2010, decided on20.il.2010 2 W.P.(S) No. 5565/2010, deaded on 21.01.2011 3 W.P.(S) No. 583/2011, decided on 04.02.2011 ^- E / -Sj."it'l-. "^t'::y ii' -;,1i.!<;" 4. ^ The issue, as aforestated, came up for consideration before this Court in Shweta Pandey , Rocm Ashish Shrivastav & Others^ smd thereafter, in Raj Kumar Tandan wherein the respondent-Publie Service Commission was represented througb its counsel, and after having considered contentions of the parties, orders were passed holding that possession of certificate was not the pre-condition before makingthe application. Thus, in light ofthe above, this petition is allowed in terms ofthe orders passed in Skweta Pandey , Ram Ashish Shrivastav & Others2 aadRaj'Kumar Tandan. Sd/- SatishK.Agaihotri Judge Asrit ll.?.li