Ku.Khusbu Thakur v. State Of Chhattisagrh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 2575 of 2009 Ku. Khusbu Thakur D/o Shri Meghraj Singh Thakur, aged about 19 years, R/o near Mandir Chowk, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Energy, D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Secretary, General Administration Department, D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board through the Additional Secretary, registered office at Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur (CG)

4. National Productivity Council through the Secretary/Additional General Manager H.R. 5-6, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri S. P. Kale, Dy. A.G.

For Respondent no.3 :

Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 02/07/2018 Claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for quashing of the impugned order dated 14.01.2009 whereby the sort listed candidates have been called for interview for the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical).

2.

The fact remains that when the advertisement was issued, the minimum qualification which was prescribed was that the candidate

should have a degree of engineering in the concerned subject on the last date of submission of the form. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner though was permitted to participate in the written examination, on the cut off date i.e. 20.05.2008 she did not have a decree of engineering in mechanical subject and therefore she was declared ineligible.

3.

Though the petitioner has challenged the subsequent development but the fact still remains that there is no proper explanation provided by the petitioner as to how she is eligible for being considered for the recruitment process when till the last date of submission of the application, the petitioner did not have a requisite qualification of a decree in engineering (mechanical). Moreover the said disqualification fixed by the respondents was not challenged by the petitioner and it is only Annexure P-4 which is a notice notifying the sort listed candidates for interview which is under challenge. Unless the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria, she cannot challenge the subsequent development which has been initiated by the respondents so far as the publication of sort listed candidates for interview as the petitioner in any case could not have been considered against the said post for want of requisite qualification on the date of advertisement even till the last date of submission of the application.

4.

Given the facts, this Court does not find any strong case made out calling for an interference with the impugned order. The writ petition thus being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Bhola