(]1 HiGHT COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTSSHGARH : BjLASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'bleShri S.R. NAYAK. A PET1TITSONERS 3. RESPONDENTS .-•-<; 3. Kalyan Singh Meshram, Aged about ' years, S/o Ram Bharos Meshram, R/oVilSage Mankeshri.PostKanker, District Kanker Bastar (C.G.) Oovind Ram Sarva, Aged about 43 years, S/o C.R. Sarva, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Kanker, District Bastar {C.G.] Smt. Chandra Prabha Rangara, Aged about 44 years, W/o R.C. Rangare, Charama, Kanker, District Kanker. Vers.us State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. (C.G.) The Principal Government College of :ducation, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) The Coilector, District Bastar (C.G.] Mr. Sourabh Jaiswai, learned counsel for the ipetitioners. Mr. Utkarsha Verma, learned P.L., for theState of Chhattjsgarh; ORALORDER (Passed on2"d December, 2005) The petitioners heTeinareail Governmentemployees^rkjtig^ Division Teachers in different Government High SchoolsjiatKlerfffie Welfare Department. Theyhave been deputed topureuejatidHiiiriat -•2-.- degree leading to B.Edasin-servicedepartmentalcandidates.itappeS that ths Government Cotlege of Education admitted them initialty overiooking the fact that they did not possess the prescribed quaiifications. Later, fhe Principal, Government Coiiege of Education cancelied their admission on the ground that they have secured iesser marks, thatis to say, less than 45^of marks in B.A./M.A. Degree courses. Being aggrieved by the saidaction, this writ petition is fiied seeking intervention ofthis Court.. Heard learned counsel for the parfies. it was contended by iearned counsel forthe petitioners that acandidatewho seeks admission to B.Ed. course shouid have minimum 45% of marks in the quaiifying degree course is not applicable to the in-service candidates who are deputed to pursue B.Edcourse through the DepartmentofTribalWelfare, iearned counsel was not ab!e to show me any statutory rule or regulation which exempts in-service candidates deputed by the Tribal Welfare Department to pursue B.Ed. coursein Government Colieges from the above prescription. Secondly, it was contended that similariy circumstanced certain other candidates who are aiready admitted to the B.Ed. course notwithstanding they had secured iess than 45% of marks and therefore similar treatment should be metedout to the petltioners a!so. This submission of the learned counsel is not acceptabie to the Court. (3) In theresult.lcanniottakeanyexcep'tiontotheactioriof ncipal, Government B.Ed. Cdllege in canceling the admissions itioners herein on the ground that they have secured less th^n 45% of It is well settled that simply because a pubiic authority has granted a benefit of advantage to a person in breach of pubjic law to which he is not entitled in terms of law, that circumstance itself wouid not justify the Court to issue direction or mandamus tosuch public authority tocommit similar illegaiity or irregularity. Therefore, the second contention is required to be rejected, the of tthe -3 in fhe quadfying degree. The writ petition is, there, dismissea, no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice k. ^ f' ^•-1