( HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH 1 BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.168 OF 2009 PETITIONER Saurabh Pandey Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish Ki Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 22nd day of February, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the letter 6-12-2008 (Annexu-re P/1) issued by the Under Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur (for short “the PSC”), by which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of the requisite qualification as per the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08/05/2008 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner applied for the post of Scientific Officer (Zoology). The requisite qualification prescribed for the said post is Master of Science Degree (Second Division) in Botany/ Zoology/ Biotechnology/ Biochemistry/ Microbiology/ Anthropology/ Judicial Science (with specialization in Judicial Zoology/ Judicial Serum Science) and also two years experience in Scientific Research or Bachelor of Science Degree with working experience of minimum five years in the Legal Laboratory that too in the field of Biotechnology. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner obtained M.Sc. (Zoology) degree in second division. The petitioner also did Post Graduate diploma in Criminology and Forensic Science. Even for ’\ \ p21 scientific research and for Ph.DA (Zoology), the petitioner deposited the requisite fee and submitted an application for research work on 30-05—2006. Accordingly, the Guru Ghasidas University registered the name of the petitioner for research work and provided the research centre to the petitioner at Government Science College, Bilaspur. By mentioning all these details, the petitioner submitted the application before the PSC, but unfortunately, he could not obtain photocopy of the same. However, all of a sudden, the petitioner received letter dated 06—12-2008 (Annexure P/1) by which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of requisite qualification. Since, the petitioner has not obtained the photocopy of the document; he made an application on 03—01—2009 (Annexure P/8) for obtaining the same before the PSC under the Right to Information Act which is pending consideration. ln the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the PSC is going to take interviews from 14—1-2009. Thus, this petition filed on 12-01—2009 by the petitioner before this Court. This Court on 144—2009 passed the interim order to the effect that “any selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 14-05-2008 (Annexure P/2) to the post of Scientific Officer (Zoology) shall be subject to fina/ outcome of this petition.” / i . g c : /. On a query, asto whetherfit is necessary to implead the persons who have been appointed during pendency of this petition as party/respondents, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is not necessary, as all the appointment orders are subject to final decision of this writ petition, by virtue of the order dated 14-1-2009 passed by this Court. Shri Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner has made an application «for registration as \.a“. a? Ph.D. candidate on 30-05—2006, the experience ought to have been counted from the date of application, though the petitioner was registered for Ph.D. subsequently, by order dated 26-06-2007. Learned counsel relies on the certificate issued by the Reader-cum- Head of the Department, Government Arts and Commerce College, Bilaspur, who according to the petitioner was his guide in the Ph.D. programme. Shri Siddiqui further submits that in case of other candidate namely; Mahendra Kumar Kashyap wherein the experience certificate was issued by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (for short "FSL"), Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, 3-6-2008 (Annexure A11) for two years. The same was taken into consideration and Mahendra Kumar Kashyap was selected on the post. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State and Shri Kachhwaha, learned counsel appearing for the PSC, submit that in the case of Mahendra Kumar Kashyap, the certificate was issued by a laboratory wherein he was doing the research work'since 34-2006. 10. ln the case on hand, the certificate was issued by the Reader-cum- Head of the Department, Government Arts and Commerce College, Bilaspur (for short "HOD"), which according to the respondents does not have the laboratory The certificate issued by the HOD on 10 6 2008 (Annexure P/7¢vas based on the fact that the petitioner has made an application on 30-5-2006 without specifying that the petitioner was granted permission for registration as Ph.D. student, only on 04-05-2007, which was communicated to the petitioner on 26~06-2007. The petitioner had not completed two years experience on or before the last date fixed for submission of the application form i.e. 20-06-2008. Thus, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. 1L3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the impugned cancellation letter dated 6—12—2008 (Annexure P/1) clearly indicates that the petitioner did not possess the required research experience of two years as prescribed under clause 4 (a) (2) of the advertisement dated 08-05-2008. 12. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the experience may be counted only from the date the petitioner has been registered for Ph.D. programming, not from the date of application making for Ph.D. programme merits acceptance. The ‘case of Mahendra Kumar Kashyap, who has not been impleaded as party/respondent in the present case, cannot be stated as‘an example. Even otherwise, Maheandra Kumar Kashyap was doing the research work in a laboratory and the certificate was issued by Director of FSL. Thus, on the merits, the petitioner has no case and has failed to establish the fact that he had two years research experience before the last date of making application as prescribed in the advertisement. 13. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and 0thers1, observed as under : "20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. [tan uncertainty is allowed to prevail,’ the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application.” 1 (2007) 4 SCC 54 )LW In Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa and othersz , the Supreme Court held that “ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application”. 15. In the case on hand, possession of requisite qualification is mandatory and, as such, the same has to be completed before the cut off date fixed in the advertisement. 16. Applying the well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, this petition is meritless and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 17. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ll i ll Sd/— l l Satish K. Agnihotri \l ll Judge ‘2 Gowri 2 (2008) 10 SCC 687