HIMMAT SINGH BAIS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though he has been permitted to appear in the written examination conducted by respondent No.3/ Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short the "PSC") held in the month of November, 2009 for the post of Assistant Professor (Law), he has not been issued the call letter to appear in the interview and has been shown as ineligible vide Annexure P-8 on the ground that he has passed the M. Phil examination after the due date i.e. 22.6.2009.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that an advertisement (Annexure P-4) was issued by the PSC for the post of Assistant Professor for 32 subjects including that of Law, pursuant to which the petitioner had filled in the form before the last date fixed for it i.e. 22.6.2009. However, while the result being declared by the PSC, name of the petitioner has been included in the list of ineligible candidates with miscellaneous reasons vide Annexure P-8. In the said document name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 07 and it has also been mentioned in the same that he has acquired the degree of M. Phil examination after the due date i.e. 22.6.2009.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had appeared in the M. Phil examination conducted by respondent No.2 (Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur) for the academic session 2007-08 and initially he was shown unsuccessful but thereafter on revaluation being done he was declared successful on 17.6.2009 vide Annexure P-3 and thus in other words it can be said that he has passed the said examination before the cut off date i.e. 22.6.2009. He further submits that in the OMR sheet the petitioner had mentioned that he was having the requisite qualification as per clause 7.6 of the advertisement and that he was not required to file any document along with the OMR sheet. According to him, as per clause 8 of the advertisement the petitioner was required to show the relevant document at the time of interview. He submits that though the petitioner had passed the M. Phil examination on 17.6.2009, mark-sheet was issued by the University on 3.7.2009 vide Annexure P-2. He submits that on 21.9.2010 the petitioner had made a representation (Annexure P-9) to the PSC apprising it of the facts of the case but unfortunately the respondent /PSC has not considered the same. He submits that having qualification and having proof of the qualification are two different things and once the petitioner is having qualification, he cannot be deprived of his legitimate right. According to him, once it is an admitted position that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification before the last date of submission of form, technicality should not come in the way of the petitioner and he should not be deprived of participating in the interview.