HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WntPetition (Sl No.3252 of 200T Pefltiongr : IndraKumar Dhurandhar S/o. Y.B. Dhurandhar, ^e - 29 years, Address - Qr; No. M.E. -167, C.S£.B. Cokiny, Korba (E) (G.G.) Vereus ResDondent : Chhattisgarh Electricity Board, Through - Mditional Secr^aTy, Chhattisgarh EleGtriclty Board, Raipur(C^j (Writ Petition under ArBcte 226ofthe ConsUtutfon of India) Slnale Bench: Hon'ble Justice Satish K.Aanihotri ^, Present : Shri N.K.Chsrtteilee, counselforthepetitioner. Shri AbhishekSinha.^ounsel for ttie respondent. ORDER (Passed on 12"' July, 2007) The petitjoner is woridng as Junior Engineer with the respondients/Eledncity Board. Pureuant to tte adverfisement for appointment on fhe post of Assistant Engineer (Annexure P-2), fte petitioner made an application. According, to the petitioner, the petitioner was selected in the written test arKl he was catted for interviCTy.OnUietlaywhenintervieWwasfBcecl.thepefitionerTOsnot permitted to appear (n the intervfew. 2. Being aggrived, ttie petiConer has flted ttiis petltion witti sote prayeri.e. . "That pefitioner's inteiview may te taken in compliance oif callletterdatedeWOr ^^^sss^w^w- 3. On perusal of the iMipers, tt appears tha the minimum qualifteation prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer Is Oegree/AMIE in Mechanical/Electricity/Electronics/Givil/GpmputBT Science wUh minimum GS% marks from any recognized University. tt was further prescribed that the candklates were required to produce final result atthetime ^inteiview, possessing minimum 65% marks in aggregiate afterfinal result, teitjngwhK^ithey vroutd not be inteiviewed and theireandlelaturewoultfstamlcancelted. Departmental candKJates fuffitling the requirCTfients as per the standing orders were also pennitted to appear in the written test foltowed by the Infervtew. 4.0nenquiryastowhetherthepetitionerhasobtainedminimum qualffication wtBi ^% marte, leamed counsel appearing for the peBttoner expresses his ignorance and sutmiits that this is not ttie case ofthe petitionerthathe should have minimum qualifteation of65%. 5. Be that as It may, the petitioner has no right to be called for the interview when he do« not possess ttie minimum required qualificationwhteh enabtes the petitioner to appear in the intervtew as is clear ftom the advertisement iteelf. •^." . ' ' '. 6. The relirf sought for in this peStton is vague and as such it cannot be granted. The petitkiiner has not further indicated any right or breach thereof whieh ean be enforced by thls Court in exereise of extraordinaryjur!sdicUonunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndia. 7. There is np merit in this case, ttus this petitton is dismissed. Indu Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge