@ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRH‘ PETETION (S) No. 5734 of 2009 PETITTONER : Smt. Shabina Bano Ansari. VERSUS _ RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & another. WRKT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA ' SB: Hmfbk Shri Satish K a'nihwri, J. ?resent: Shli Satyemira Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 05 day of April, 26310) Chalienge in this petition is to the rejection ofthe application of the petitioner by order tiated 07.09.2009 (Annexure P/l) for selection and appointment on contract basis on the post ofTraining Otticer, Grade-III in Industrial Training Institute of the State Government and’iiirther seeks a direction to the responoents to post the petitioner on the post of Training Oiiicer, Grade-III. Shri Satyendra Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004 (for short ‘the Rules, 2004’) does not provide for rejection of a candidature of an applicant who has more than two living children, one of whom is born on or after 26m January, 2001. Thus, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is vitiated and is contrary to the statutory provisions oflaw. 3. The petitioner does not rfispute the fact that she has more than two living children, one of whom was born atter 26m January, 2001. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri. learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that Rule 8 clearly provides that the eligibility and qualification as prescribed in Rule 5 ofthe Chhattisgarh Civil Service (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short, the Raters; 1961 ’) would be applicable in case of appointment made under the Rules, 2004. . A @ 2 Sub Rule 6 of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1961 proyides that no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service or any post if he has more than two living children, one of whom is born on or after 26m January, 2001. Thus, the application of the petitioner was rightly rejected as the same comes within the purview ofdisqualitication as enshrined in Rule 6 ofthe Rules, 1961. 5. On consideration ofthe rival contentions ofthe learned counsel for the parties, perusal ofthe pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the mother ofthree children one of Whom was born after ‘t’ ‘ 26.01.2001. Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 2004 provides for eligibility and qualification for appointment wherein it is provided that the eligihility and qualification for contract appointment shall be the same as prescribed in rule 5 and 6 ofthe Rules. 1961. Further sub rule (a) of Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 2004 prescribes for eligibility and qualification and not the disqualification. Whereas, Rule 6 ofthe Rules, 1961 prescribes for disqualification not for eligibility and qualiiications. Rule 8 of the Rules, 2004 and Rule 6 ofthe Rulesi 1961 both has to be read together as in Rule 8 ofthe Rules, 2004, it is prescribed that the eligibility and qualification shall be the same as prescribed in Rule 5 ofthe Rules, 1961. 6. Since the fact with regard to third child of the petitioner is admitted, Rule 6 of the Rules, 1961 would come into play, which makes the petitioner disqualified for appointment to a service or a post on the ground of having more than two children out of whom, one is born atter 26f“ January, 2001. Thus, the rejection ofthe candidature ofthe petitioner is just, proper and needs no intertei‘ence. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself ‘ l / K. sd/ agnih°‘rii satish Judge