Shristi Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4 of 2021 Shristi Sharma W/o Shri Praful Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o House No. 147 Shishak Colony, I Baghel Chowk Kharora Road Tilda, Tehsil Post And Police Station Tilda, Nevra District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Director Of Public Instruction (Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya) Throug Its Director First Floor Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Nirmal Shukla with Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocates For State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12/02/2021 1.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the declaring of the petitioner ineligible for selection to the post of Lecturer(Physics). Rejection of the petitioner was on the ground that petitioner had produced the domicile certificate of the period that was subsequent to the results being declared.

2.

Counsel for the petitioner tried to challenge the very Clause in the advertisement which mandates for providing of the certificates before results were declared.

3.

This Court is of the firm view that law in this regard is well settled to the extent that, having known the conditions to the advertisement well in advance and also having participated in the same after at a later stage it has been found that petitioner does not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and being declared ineligible, the petitioner thereafter cannot turn around and challenge the advertisement or conditions to the advertisement or action on the part of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been declared ineligible in terms of the conditions to the advertisement.

4.

The writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and stands accordingly rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit