c^ © ....^^^-^L-^sM^ _ ^ ^3^%@::::: ^ '-^, JaHHE HC^BLE HIGH COUKT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASFUR W.P.(S) No. 5c:r^ /2011 PETITIQNER ^ Raj Kumar Tandan S/o Shri Siikul Ram Tandan, aged about 29 years, R/o At Post- Salni, via- Jaijaipur, District-Janjgir-Chanipa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS A- State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Higher Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Public Servlce Cormnission, Raipur Through - its Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur (C.G.) /' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (S): As stated above in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT (S): As stated above in fhe cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE ORDER(S) AGAINST. WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE SUBIECT MATTER IN 3RIEF The instant petition has been preferred against the illegal and arbitrary astiori of fhe respondent no.2 whereby fhough the IB-II^ g '%s-cs£^^x ~^^^' ^'s-iWS^ IflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARI-I AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITTON (S) No. 503 of2011 Raj Kumar Tandan. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Another WRIT PE'rmON UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AenihotrLJ. Present: Shri Chafldresh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No. 1. . Shri Sanjeev Verma, Advocate appearing on behalfof Shri Y.C.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passedon 04 day of February, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to tiie respondent No..g2 to consider his case alongwith other selected candidates, treating him as eligible and further, to direct the respondent No. 2 to permit, the petitioner to participate in the intei-view and consider the case ofthe petitioner, in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is agerieved by the decision of the respondeiit - Public Service Commission (for short "PSC") whereby tlie candidatiu'e ofthe petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not in possession of certificate of National Eligibility Test (for short "NE.T"). 3. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for tlie .petitioner, submits that the last date of filing of application pursuant to the advertisement dated 15-5-2009, was 22-6-2009. The petitioner had acquired NET certificate ofpassing, which is a condition for .^fa6i%. y'^'* '%. ^f'r" -..-i-... s" !'' i!...,;l<'XT~» ^ y making application for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi). Learned counsel further submit that the important informations published along with the advertisement clearly indicate that the candidate making OMR application was not required to produce any document/certificate-in original or photocopy. Accordingly, no cenificate was filed. The petitioner participated in the written examination. Thereafter, he was called for interview, but at the time of interview, he was restrained from attending the interview on account of fhe fact he was not having NET certificate on the date when he made application. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent authorities have mixed up with the requirement ofpossessing qualification on the date of submission of application. There is no dispute that on the date application was made the petitioner had qualification ofNET, but was not in possession of the certificate and on that ground the petitioner could not have been declared as ineligible candidate for want ofpossession ofcertificate. 4. Leamed counsel placed reliance upon decision of the Supreme Court rendered viDolly Chhanda v. Chairm.an, JEE and Others and upon the decision of this Court rendered in Shweta Pandey v. State ofChhattisgarhand Another wh'erein the identical issue was involved. 5. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - PSC, submits that the issue involved in the case is also. squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 21.01.2011 in W.P.(S) No. 5565 of 2010 (RamAshishShrivastava & Others v. State ofChhattisgarh & Another) and other connected matter. w -^3^ 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 7. I have perused the advertisement wherein it is provided that before the date ofmaking application i.e. 22-6-2009 a candidate should have NET passing certificate conducted by the UGC or CSIR or SET under clause 3.1 (b). There was no requirement of production ofcertificate either along with the application fonn or before the last date ofmaking applicatipn. 8. It is clear from clause (6) of the important information, which was specially published in the advertisement ifself stating that no original or photocopy of any document be annexed with OMR application. Accordingly, the application was made by the petitioner. 9. It is mdisputable that the petitioner was in possession of NET certificate before making the application and the rejection ofthe candidature on the above-stated ground from any angel is not sustainable. The Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda (supra) observed as under : "7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either m the admission brochure or in applieation form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary' , certificates, degrees or marksheets, Similariy, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc, necessary certificates have to be produced. These aie dociiments in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of =-^^-——^^=: ^.»fiii( fc..iaet<fe.. I ''•:<iC""'"'4J I" 'S-!..,.:"' ;3!' ^ Aniit marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter ofsubmission ofproofand it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection ofcandidature." lO.This Court also vaShweta Pandey (swpra) observed that possession ofcertificate is not a pre-condition before making the application. ll.For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the decision of the PSC declaring the petitioner as ineligible candidate on the ground that he was not in possession of NET certificate is rejected. Accordingly, the PSC is directed to declare the result of the selection process. If the petitioner is found selected in accordance with the select list and if on account of the above stated defect. the petitioner has not been interviewed, the authorities are directed to interview the petitioner, if he is found, otherwise successful and eli.eible for intei'view. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge [i] (2005)98cc 779 [2] WP (S)No.5297 of 2010 (decided on 20-11-2010) (fpil eBs—^.B-e—!