W , (I) } IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR w. p. (S) No. mo; OF 2009 Simgm amh Premulal Sahu, S/o Shri Sukhchand Sahu, aged about 38 years R/o Village Kukra Post Offlce Rlwa Tah311 Arang, D1str1ct Ra1pur (C G ) PETITIONER VERSUS / RESPONDENTS :1. State of Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Public Service WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Through : , The Secretary Department of ‘ General Administration, Mantralaya, Commission, Through the Secretaxy, Shanker Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) C? /M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA§PUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (SI No. 4903 of 2009 Petitioner Premulal Sahu Versus Respondents State of C.G. and others Post for pronouncement of order on Q01 0-2011 Sdl- Pritinker Diwake Judge v/j; 7M r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 4903 of 2009 PETITIONER Premulal Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of C.G. & Another Shri Pratik Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. Sh‘ri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER ( 20.10.2011) Challenge in this Writ petition is to the impugned order dated 17.08.09 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for his main examination on the ground that instead of submitting the Bank draft, he has submitted the Cheque of his personal account of Rs. 200/—. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 22.09.2008 advertisement No. 10/2008 was published by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, inviting applications to participate in the preliminary examination for appointment on various posts prescribed under Rule 1 of Chhattisgarh State Services Examination Rules (hereinafter referred to as “Examination Rules" for convenience). Pursuant to the said advertisement, various candidates nlled-in their forms and participated in the preliminary examination which was conducted on 1.2.2009 and the result whereof was declared on 01.05.09. Petitioner's further case is that he was declared successful for the main examination and was informed accordingly by notice dated 18.05.09 (Annexure P-5). For. the main examination the ‘ petitioner was also sent a separate form to be filled-in in terms of the conditions contained in the advertisement dated 20.09.08 (Annexure P-2) which was published on 22.09.08. Further case of the petitioner is that though he tilled-in the complete form for the main examination, instead of l “2_ submitting the Bank draft he initially had enclosed a personal cheque of Rs. 200/— and subsequently after coming to know about the rejection of his application form on 22.08.09, he submitted the Bank draft to the P.S.C. According to him, 'whiie rejecting his application form respondent/P.S.C. has taken a hyper technical approach and once the petitioner had submitted the Bank draft also though after the prescribed date, the same should have been accepted by the respondents and the petitioner shOuld have been allowed to appear in the main examination. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though six other candidates who were initially ineligible have been considered by first being called, allowed to make representation and then declared eligible but the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination at the hands of the respondent/PSC. He submitted that in clause 10 of the advertisement (Annexure P-2) it is nowhere mentioned that the candidate is required to submit a bank draft. According to him, clause 10 of the advertisement merely mentions that the candidate has to pay Rs. 200 and 300 in respective categories towards the cost of the form. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that clause 28 of the said advertisement would not apply to the applications of main examination but to the applications for preliminary examination only. 4. Replying to the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that while informing the petitioner on 18.5.2009 by way of Annexure P-9, a separate form for the main examination was als’o annexed to be tilled-in by the petitioner. They submit that according to the said form, a candidate was required to submit the bank draft of Rs. 200 and 300 as the case may be depending upon the category and a separate column was given to this effect in which the candidate was required to give details of the said bank draft. They submit that in the intimation letter dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure P—5) it was categorically mentioned that ‘all the conditions contained in the advertisement dated 20.9.2008 (Annexure‘P-2) were to be complied and form was to be carefully read and then filled—in accordingly. They submit that in clause 3.2 of the notice (Annexure P-5) it is specifically mentioned hat candidate was compulsorily required to submit,the,bank draft of State t Bank of India in the name of Secretary, Public Service commission payabie at Raipur. According to him, reserved category candidate was required to attach the bank draft of Rs. 200 whereas the generai category candidate was required to attach the bank draft of Rs. 300. They further submit that in ciause 3.3 of the notice (Annexure P-5) it is also mentioned that the candidate was required to show his name on the back side of the draft and according to ciause 3.4 thereof the banker cheque was also acceptable from the candidates who were Iiving in the Raipur city. According to them, the application form along with bank draft was required to be submitted on or before 22.6.2009 till 5.30 p.m. They furth’er submit that in the case of the petitioner. in stead of attaching the bank draft, he chose to attach the cheque of his personal account and no bank draft as required was submitted prior to the cut off date and time and therefore his candidature has rightly been rejected. Counsel for the respondents further submit that the second bank draft was admittedly prepared on 22.8.2009 i.e. two months after the last date for submission of form and therefore the PSC is fully justified in not accepting the same. According to th’e counsel for the respondents, in none of the cases the PSC has accepted the personal cheque from anyone and it is not only the petitioner whose candidature has been rejected on the ground of non-annexing the bank draft but the candidature of several other candidates has also been rejected on this very ground. They submit that reference of six candidates given by the petitioner is entirely different because their cases are not relating to bank draft but they are with respect to caste certificate, domicile and various other reasons, Counsel for the respondents invited the attention of this Court to clause 10 (Note 3) of the advertisement (Annexure P-2) which says that after declaration of the result of preliminary examination, separate form would be made available to the successful candidate and the candidate would be required to pay requisite fee for the same and without which the form would not be accepted for the main examination. According to them, as‘per clause 28 once the entry is made in the form, same would not be permitted to be amended. They submit that as per clause 10 of the advertisement, the candidate .was required to purchase the form for the preliminary examination by paying Rs. 200 and as per the procedure the forms for the preliminary examination were made ’ \03 _Q _ available through the post office by paying the requisite amount of Rs. 200. They submit that no discrimination has been made to the petitioner and that he cannot claim any negative equaiity. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. In the intimation Ietter dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure P-5) it is categorically mentioned that all the conditions contained in the advertisement dated 20.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) were to be duly complied ‘ with and application form was to be read carefully before being tilled in. Clause 3.2 of Annexure P-5 further says that the candidates of reserved and general category were compulsorily required to submit the bank draft of Rs. 200 and 300 respectively drawn at State Bank of India in the name of Secretary, Public Service .Commission payable at Raipur mentioning his/her name on its back side. Clause 3.4 of Annexure P-5 further goes to show that banker cheque was also acceptable from the candidates living in the Raipur city. Thus it is clear that the according to the terms and conditions prescribed by the respondent/PSC the candidate was required to submit the bank draft of Rs. 200 and 300 depending upon the category helshe might belong to, along with the application form and the banker cheque was acceptable only from the candidates living in the city of Raipur. Petitioner, undisputedly, had annexed the cheque of his personal account along with the application form and thereby infringed the condition laid down by the respondent/PSC. Secondly, the reference of six candidates given by the petitioner stands entirely on different footing as their cases do not relate to bank draft rather they are with respect to caste. certificate, domicile and various other reasons and therefore he cannot derive any benem laying the claim of negative equality. Further, the second bank draft admittedly prepared on 22.8.2009 i.e. two months after the last date for submission of form has rightly not been accepted by the PSC. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the act of the respondent No.2 in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appearing in the main examination on the ground of