Manish Shrivas v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 10675 of 2019 • Manish Shrivas S/o Shri S.P. Shrivas, Aged About 31 Years R/o Arihant Colony, Near Bus-Stand, Ward No.- 1, Gobra Nawapara District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Director, Public Instruction Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through The Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan, Narth Block Sector-19, Atal Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. GA For Respondent No.3 :

Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 17/12/2019

1. Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in an examination conducted by respondent No.3 for the post of Lecturer (Physics) and though he is M.Tech in Power Electronics, however, in the eligibility criteria, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he is not

Post Graduate (M.Sc.).

3. It is contended that the eligibility criteria requires a person should be holder of P.G./ equivalent degree of the like nature and B.Ed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner is holder of M.Tech, which would the qualification of P.G., therefore, the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he is not P.G. though he is the holder of M.Tech is illegal. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed the representation, which may be directed to be decided forthwith as per the different guidelines which governs the fact that the P.G. and the M.Sc. may be same.

4. Considering the submission made by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner only claims that the representation to be decided, it is directed that respondents No.1 & 2 shall decide the representation of the petitioner and if the M.Tech is held equivalent to the P.G. which is desired by the respondents, in such case, the petitioner may be made eligible for the other part of the examination. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu