TS^SS^ ^-=-r-^ tiNdlE %EKCK C-P \ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR PETITIONER W.P. (C) No. ^/^S 72010 / Ashutosh Prasad S/o. Braj Kishore Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o. Barwatoli, College Road, Lohardaga, District: Lohardaga (Jharkhand). IWNIIIIIIINN RESPONDENTS o <°."•° ^- ..'•'' q^>^y ^^^ ^^•" '^ VERSUS ^ 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Through its Secretary ; Board of Secondary Education Campus, Pension Bada Raipur, District: Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER^ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 6175 OF 2010 PET!TIONER RESPONDENTS Ashutosh Prasad Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A. K. Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 27th day of October, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in the Pre-B.Ed. examination and thereafter, the petitioner was called for counselling. In the counselling, the petitioner was denied admission as he has obtained 48.37% marks in his graduation whereas the minimum requisite qualifying marks is 50% in graduation. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the identical matter Pankaj Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh^ and other connected matters, came up for consideration before this Court. The Court held that the minimum qualifying marksis 50% in graduation, as under : "12. From the afore-stated analysis and in view of the observations \n Mukesh Singh Thakur (supra), it is held that the qualification of having 50% in graduate/post graduate degree cannot be reduced. Thus, the petitioners have acquired no right on the basis of amendments dated 14.02.2008 by the State Government for appearing in the pre-B.Ed examination, which is contrary to the regulations prescribed by the N.C.T.E." On perusal ofthe papers, it is clearthatthe dispute involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Pankaj Kumar Pandey\ Thus, this petition has no merit. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Ashok Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge 1W.P.(C) No. 4749 of 2010 (decided on 31-08-2010)