Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.M.Tripathi for the opposite party No. 1 and Sri Avadhesh Shukla for opposite party No.2.
Petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 20.11.2009 and the subsequent selection in pursuance thereof. The advertisement has been made for the posts of Coordinator, Block Resource Centre, Assistant Coordinator, Block Resource Centre and Coordinator, Nyay Panchyat Resource Centre. The petitioner has challenged the first category appointment i.e. of Coordinator Block Resource Centre.
The conditions shown in the advertisement against the post of Coordinator, Block Resource Centre is such teachers who are Head Masters in Junior High Schools, who have completed 10 years of service. It has been further pointed out that this requirement of age has been further credited by an amendment in the advertisement dated 31.12.2009 as contained in Annexure-2. The petitioner says that he was not allowed to apply and appear in the selection process while a list of 43 persons have been made and published by the opposite parties which is contained in annexure-4 in the writ petition. These 43 persons have been allowed to appear in the written test on 15.1.2010 and the interview on 20.1.2010. The petitioner categorically makes submissions that these 43 persons are also not eligible as per the requirement of the advertisement. But all these in-eligible persons have been allowed to appear in the examination and the opposite parties are going to declare the result in a day or two. The petitioner has made representations also in this regard dated 13.1.2010 and 16.1.2010 which are pending before the opposite parties but they have not paid any heed on these representations.
It has also been pointed out that earlier on the complaint of the petitoiner certain persons as mentioned in annexure-7 were found invalidly selected and their appointment were cancelled on 27.10.2009. This selection was for the year 2007. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this has become a matter of habit with the opposite parties. The petitioner is being discriminated time and again and hence he has to approach this Court having been left with no efficacious and alternative remedy.
Sri Avadhesh Shukla has stated that he will have to seek instructions because these are factual allegations and at this moment he can not make any categorical statement before the Court without having the proper and written instructions.
The petitioner counsel has shown apprehension that by this evening the opposite parties will declare the result of the selected candidates and the petitioner will be further put to disadvantage through arbitrary action of the opposite parties.
Sri Shukla prays that the case may be listed in the next week when he will seek instructions but he can not give assurance that the result will not be declared by this evening.
Accordingly, this Court while fixing the case in the next week prohibits the opposite parties from making any declaration of the result in pursuance of the advertisement aforesaid till the next date of listing.
It is clarified that this order shall be only with regard to the post of Coordinator, Block Resource Centre and rest of the selection regarding Assistant Coordinator, Block Resource Centre etc. will have no bearing to this order.
Accordingly, list this case in the next week as fresh showing the name of Sri Avadhesh Shukla as counsel for the opposite parties.
Order Date :- 21.1.2010 RKM.