ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ of mandamus and certiorari and for other suitable direction to the respondents, as the name of the petitioner has been kept in the non eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (Geography). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had done Masters of Philosophy (M. PHIL) in Geography subject in the year 2008 from Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar. The respondent No.2 published an advertisement vide No.01/2009/ Examination/Dated 15/05/2009 for selection and recruitment of the 878 posts of the Assistant Professors under the Higher Education Department, State of Chhattisgarh. The written examination for the aforesaid selection of the Assistant Professors was held on 29/11/2009 and thereafter the result of the same was declared. The petitioner duly appeared in the said written examination by fulfilling all the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Geography) but he was declared not eligible for the interview. The petitioner when enquired about the specific reason as to why his candidature has not been considered, he came to know under Right to Information Act that the respondent No.2 has put the petitioner's name in the category of Not Eligible Candidates for the post of Assistant Professors on the ground that petitioner did not submit the copy of required documents, specifically his M.Phil Degree at the time when he submitted the form. The petitioner also made representation to the respondent authorities in this regard, but the same has not been considered, hence the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. To kindly direct the respondent No.2 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to delete the name of the petitioner from the list of non eligible candidates for the reason of non submission of documents related to educational qualification for the post of Assistant Professor, Geography. II. To kindly direct the respondent No.2 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to consider the petitioner's candidature on merit basis and call him to appear in interview process. III. To kindly direct the respondent No.2 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment for the post of Assistant Professor, Geography. IV. II. To kindly direct the respondent No.2 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to consider the petitioner's candidature on merit basis and call him to appear in interview process. III. To kindly direct the respondent No.2 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment for the post of Assistant Professor, Geography. IV. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and uncalled for. The respondent No.2 has put petitioner's name in the category of Not Eligible Candidates for the post of Assistant Professors on the ground that petitioner did not submit the copy of required documents, specifically his M.Phil degree at the time when he submitted the form, however it was clearly mentioned in clause 8 of the advertisement that the candidates were supposed to bring the required documents including the copy of their degree at the time of interview and not at the initial stage. Clause 6 of the advertisement gives information pertaining to submission of O.M.R. application form. It was clearly stated in clause 7.6 of the advertisement that no other document whatsoever had to be sent along with O.M.R. application form at the time of submission of O.M.R. application form. It was nowhere specifically mentioned in the advertisement that the copy of M. Phil Degree had to be submitted at the very initial stage i.e. at the time of submitting the form, as such there is clear violation of the prescribed selection process. He further submits that as per the notification dated 09/10/2012, 6 posts were kept vacant for Geography subject on the order of this Court. The petitioner made a representation to respondents to consider his candidature for the posts ordered to be kept vacant by High Court but of no avail. In any public recruitment, the selection process should be fair and transparent. In this case the entire selection process is void ab initio and the petitioner being a deserving candidate should be given a fair chance and because of respondents' faults, the petitioner has been disqualified and put in the list of not eligible candidates. In any public recruitment, the selection process should be fair and transparent. In this case the entire selection process is void ab initio and the petitioner being a deserving candidate should be given a fair chance and because of respondents' faults, the petitioner has been disqualified and put in the list of not eligible candidates. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dolly Chhanda vs Chairman, JEE and others, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Dr. Kamlesh Jain vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPS No.1727/2011, decided on 29.03.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner did not submit copy of his M.Phil Degree at the time when he submitted the form, as such the respondent No.2 CGPSC has rightly put the petitioner in the category of non eligible candidates. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the name of the petitioner has been included in the list of non eligible candidates, as the petitioner has failed to produce the certificates of NET, SLET, M.Phil., Ph.D. Degree in the office of the Secretary or Examination Controller of the PSC on or before 22/2/2010. The petitioner's failed in producing the certificate of qualification of NET, SLET, M.Phil., Ph.D. degree on or before 22/2/2010 as per the notice dated 2/2/2010 and even not appeared before the PSC up to the date of completion of interview i.e. from 27/10/2010 to 28/10/2010 and as such the name of the petitioner has been included in the list of non-eligible candidates. The petitioner produced the certificates of degree on 7/11/2012 after 2 years of the interview, as such the same does not give him any right to continue in the selection process, as the interview was conducted during the period 27/10/2010 to 28/10/2010, as such the application/ representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected in a just and proper manner, hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. After the written examination for the post of Assistant Professor conducted by the PSC, a notice dated 02.02.2010 was published in newspaper and displayed in the official internet website of the PSC instructing the candidates qualified in the written test to submit the certificate of qualification of NET, SLET, M.Phil., Ph.D. degrees in the office of the Secretary or the Examination Controller of the PSC on or before 22/2/2010 through registered post and after issuance of the said notice it was also decided to permit the candidates to place their respective degree/certificates on the date of interview and the qualified candidates were called for the interview. The petitioner did not produce the certificate on or before 22/2/2010 as per the notice dated 2/2/2010 and even did not come to the office of the Secretary or Examination Controller of the PSC on the dates of interview I.e. 27/10/2010 to 28/10/2010, whereas the petitioner submitted his application on 7/11/2012 by producing the degree certificates, which is at a belated stage after two years of issuance of notice, hence the name of the petitioner has been shown in the list of non-eligible candidates. The petitioner being an aspirant of the post of Assistant Professor should vigilant about the notice/notification etc. Even the notice dated 2/2/2010 has been displayed in the official website of the PSC, which cannot be ignored as the notice/instruction displayed in the official website is very authentic. The candidates who had supplied their degree certificate pursuant to the notice up to the date of interview were permitted to participate in the interview, though their names were published in the list of non-eligible candidates because of non submission of certificate, hence it was for the petitioner that he should have submitted his certificate at the time of interview though his name was found in the list of non eligible candidates and had the petitioner been vigilant like other candidates who appeared before the PSC during the date of interview than the petitioner would have been permitted to participate in the interview. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs T. T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs T. T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 . 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. As per the petitioner, he did not file any documents with his form as per the conditions of the advertisement. Annexure-P/4 is a copy of advertisement dated 22.06.2009. In para 7.6 of the advertisement, it is mentioned that ^^vks-,e-vkj- vkosnu i= ds lkFk fdlh Hkh izek.k i= dh ewy voLFkk Nk;kizfr ;k vU; nLrkost layXu ugha djuk gSA^^ In the middle of the advertisement, the same is also mentioned as ^^vks-,e-vkj- vkosnu i= ds lkFk fdlh Hkh izek.k i= dh ewy voLFkk Nk;kizfr ;k vU; nLrkost layXu ugha djuk gSA^^ It is also mentioned in the advertisement as under:- uksV% mi;qZDr vko';d vgZrk;sa vkosnu djus dh frfFk vFkok mlds iwoZ dk gksuk vfuok;Z gSA vkosnu djus ds ckn dh frfFk ds 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk;sa ekU; ugh gksaxs rFkk vkosndksa ds }kjk vks-,e-vkj- vkosnu i= Hkstus ds ckn mUgsa vks-,e-vkj- vkosnu i= esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ds la'kks/ku dk volj ugh fn;k tk;sxkA vr% vkosndksa dks lykg nh tkrh gS fd os vks-,e-vkj- vkosnu i= vR;ar lko/kkuh ls HkjsaA^^ ” 9. The petitioner filed application (Annexure-P/8), which is as under:- ^^izfr] lfpo@ijh{kk fu;a=d NRrhlxढ+ yksde lsok vk;ksx] jk;iqj fo"k;%& lgk;d izk/;kid ijh{kk 2009 Hkwxksy fo"k; esa vugZ lwph ls vgZ vH;kfFkZ;ksa esa lfEefyr djus laca/k ckcn~ rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh vkns'k rFkk vk;ksx dh cSBd fnukad 25@04@2011 o 04@07@2012 ds ikyu esa vukjf{kr oxZ ds 04 in fjDr esa lfEdfyr djus ckcn~A ------------000---------- fo"k;karxZr ys[k gS fd eSa izkFkhZ Jh jfon'kZu pkSdls firk Jh rhjFk izlkn pkSdls us NRrhlxढ+ yksd lsok vk;ksx ds foKkiu daz-01@2009 @ijh{kk fnukad 15@05@2009 jkstxkj vkSj fu;kstu esa izdk'ku fnukad 20@05@2009 ds vuq:i ijh{kk QkeZ Hkjk FkkA ftldh eq[; ijh{kk 29@11@2009 dks Hkwxksy fo"k; ¼06 dksM½ ls lfEefyr gqvk FkkA esjs }kjk tkudkjh vHkkoo'k ewy nLrkost dh Nk;kizfr layXu ugh dj ik;k Fkk vr% ekU;oj th ls fuosnu gS fd esjs ewy nLrkost dh Nk;kizfr dk voyksdu dj ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk fjDr in ¼06½ Hkwxksy fo"k; esa lfEefyr djus dh d`ik djsaA** In this letter, receiving of office of PSC is of the date 07.11.2012. The respondent No.2 filed copy of notice dated 02.02.2010. The contents of notice are as under:- NRrhlx<+ yksd lsok vk;ksx] jk;iqj dzekad 1858@60@2009 jk;iqj fnukad 02@02@10 lgk;d izk/;kid ¼mPp f'k{kk foHkkx½ dh ijh{kk esa lfEefyr vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds fy, lwpuk NRrhlx<+ yksd lsok vk;ksx] jk;iqj ds }kjk lgk;d izk/;kid ¼mPp f'k{kk foHkkx½ ds in ij p;u ds fy, vkosnu vkeaf=r djus gsrq foKkiu tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldk izdk'ku ^^jkstxkj vkSj fu;kstu** esa fnukad 20@05@2009 dks gqvk FkkA mDr foKkiu ds rgr vkosnu i= izLrqr djus okys vkosndksa ds fy, fnukad 29 ,oa 30@11@2009 dks fyf[kr ijh{kk vk;ksftr dh xbZ FkhA mDr fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd] 1@lgk;d izk[;kid in ds fy, vks-,e-vkj- vkosnu i= izLrqr djus dh vafre frfFk 22@06@2009 rd ;k mlds iwoZ os NET, SET, ijh{kk mRrh.kZ Fks@ih,p-Mh-@,e- fQy] fMxzh] /kkj.k djrs Fks] rks rnk'k; dh tkudkjh ,oa nLrkostksa dh izekf.kr Nk;kizfr fuEukafdr izk:i esa lfpo vFkok ijh{kk fu;a=d] NRrhlx<+ yksd lsok vk;ksx] jk;iqj dks fnukad 22@02@2010 rd vfuok;Zr% jftLVMZ Mkd ls izsf"kr djsaA 2@ vH;FkhZ mDr tkudkjh dk;kZy;hu fnolksa esa vk;ksx ds ijh{kk 'kk[kk esa Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj izLrqr dj ikorh izkIr dj ldrk gSA Lgk;d izk/;kid ijh{kk&2009 1- vH;kFkhZ dk uke& 2- fo"k; dk uke& 3- LukrdksRrj ijh{kk esa izkIrkdksa dk izfr'kr& 4- vks-,e-vkj- vkosnu i= dk dzekad& 5- vk;ksx }kjk vkcafVr jksyuacj& 6-D;k vki NET/SET ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gS\& 7-;fn gkW rks ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus dh frfFk& ¼d`i;k nLrkost@izek.k i= layXu djsa½ 8-D;k vkius ih,p-Mh-@,e-fQy-fd;k gS\& 9- ;fn gkW rks mikf/k@fMxzh izkIr djus dh frfFk& ¼d`i;k nLrkost @ izek.k i= layXu djsa½ gkW @ugha --------- ih,p-Mh@,e-fQy ¼tks ykxw u gks½ --------------------------- Vhi%& vH;kFkhZ ds ikl fnukad 22@06@2009 vFkok mlds iwoZ dh fLFkfr esa mDr in ds fy, mi;ZqDrkuqlkj oakfNr U;wure vgZrk;sa gksuh pkfg,A ;fn vH;kFkhZ ih,p-Mh- vFkok ,e-fQy ;k nksuksa gks rFkk NET/SET ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gks rks ,d ls vf/kd rnuqlkj tkudkjh nh tk,A fnukad& LFkku& irk& vH;kFkhZ ds gLRkk{kj uke& i= O;ogkj dk orZeku -------------------- lgh@& ijh{kk fu;a=d N-x- yksd lsok vk;ksx] jk;iqj” 10. The petitioner did not file any document, which may show that he filed any application or certificate on or before 22.02.2010 as per notice dated 02.02.2010, whereas the interview was conducted on 27.10.2010 & 28.10.2010 but the petitioner did not file any document which shows that he appeared on all these dates before the respondent No.2. The petitioner did not file any document, which may show that he filed any application or certificate on or before 22.02.2010 as per notice dated 02.02.2010, whereas the interview was conducted on 27.10.2010 & 28.10.2010 but the petitioner did not file any document which shows that he appeared on all these dates before the respondent No.2. The petitioner only filed application (Annexure-P/8), which shows that he filed application before the respondent No.2 on 07.11.2012 i.e. after 2 years of the interview. Apart from it, the petitioner did not file any document in this regard showing that he appeared or filed documents before the respondent No.2 on or before 22.02.2010 or at the time of interview on 27.10.2010 and 28.10.2010. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner did not file requisite documents as per the notice of respondent No.2, as such no case is made out in favour of the petitioner to entertain the present writ petition. 12. The writ petition has no merit. It fails and is hereby dismissed accordingly.