Md. Saheb Jan vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for his appointment on the post of Block Programme Officer. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to advertisement issued on 20.07.2012, the petitioner appeared and participated in the selection process. The name of the petitioner was published on 15.10.2012 as a successful candidate. Thereafter, the result was cancelled on technical ground. Again, the interview was conducted on 29.10.2012 and a list of selected candidates was published on 02.11.2012 whereunder also the name of the petitioner appeared. However, the petitioner was not offered appointment therefore, he was constrained to move this Court by filing the present writ petition.

A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under:

That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 1 to 4 of the writ application, it is stated that the instant writ application has been preferred for directing the respondents to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner in confirmative to the result published in news paper dated 2.11.2012 for the post of Block Programme Officer under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan of Koderma District after quashing the revised list of result published by selection committee dated 3.11.2012 presided by Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and to pass any other order which is fit and suitable in the fact and circumstances of the case. It has been contended that as per news dated No. 20.7.2012 published in newspaper, petitioner filled up an application for the post of Block Program Officer of Koderma District he applied for appointment on the said post Accordingly he appeared in interview and result was published in which he was shown to be selected as block programme officer. But later on scrutiny his selection was cancelled by Selection Committee. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the instant writ filed by the petitioner not legally maintainable as petitioner did not fulfill the requirement and condition for selection and appointment of the Block Programme Officer., The appointment of Block Programme Officer was on contract basis. Requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Block Programme officer was graduation in second division beside other condition. Total marks of selection of candidate was fixed at 100 which was decided to be consider for following manners:-

That after taken interview of the candidate by selection committee the result was published in newspaper but alter on in course of scrutiny by selection committee by examine the testimonial of the candidates it was ascertained that the petitioner had no qualification of B.Ed. He had certificate of primary teacher training (PTT) which was not the requisite qualification thus the petitioner had no qualification of B.Ed. So in scrutiny before appointment the marks given to him against B.Ed. qualification was deducted. After that he has not come in selection list and accordingly his appointment was cancelled and other suitable candidate was appointed. Thus it is instant that as petitioner did not fulfill the requirement and condition of selection for the post of Block Programme Officer. So his selection was rightly cancelled. Hence this writ is not legally maintainable.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the advertisement issued on 20.07.2012, the only qualification mentioned for appointment on the post of Block Programme Officer was graduate in 2nd Glass and no other qualification has been mentioned. He has further submitted that though, the name of the petitioner appeared twice as successful candidate, the petitioner was not offered appointment on the post of Block Programme Officer and in the counter-affidavit a new plea has been taken by the respondents stating that the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Block Programme Officer is graduate with B.Ed. degree.

The learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Block Programme Officer would include a degree in B.Ed. also. Since, the petitioner is not possessing B.Ed. degree, therefore, he was not offered appointment on the post of Block Programme Officer. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the only qualification mentioned in the advertisement for appointment on the post of Block Programme Officer is graduate in 2nd Class. It is not the case of the respondents that any corrigendum was issued adding the qualification of B.Ed. as essential qualification for appointment on the post of Block Programme Officer. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit is patently not justified. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner within a period of six weeks, after production of a copy of this order.