@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, learned J.C. to S.C. V for the State.
2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 3 to issue appointment letter in view of the select list as the name of the petitioner figures in the merit list dated 23.04.2006, as according to the petitioner his appointment letter to Class IV post has not been given solely on the ground that the petitioner possesses higher qualification than what was required in terms of the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner has made this application.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is an Intermediate and as per the notification dated 25.04.1997, his educational qualification which was required for filling up the Class IV post was upto Matriculation. He further submits that the notification fixing a maximum educational qualification required for making application i.e., upto Matriculation was declared ultra vires by this Court in the case of "Bivash Kumar v. State of Bihar" reported in (2000) 1 PLJR 787. He further submits that earlier the State of Jharkhand has issued a Circular dated 19.07.2007 in which the minimum qualification for Class IV post is prescribed as 8th pass. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner is Intermediate pass, there is no bar for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on Class IV post. Learned counsel submits that very recently also some of the empaneled candidates namely, Meghu Mahto and Md. Anwar Ansari have been appointed by the respondent no. 3.
4. Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, learned J.C. to S.C. V submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.10.2005, a panel of 624 candidates were prepared and during the financial year 2006-07, under the recommendation for appointment on Class IV post, 386 posts were filled up. He further submits that the panel was valid for a period of one year in terms of the Government instructions and since after expiry of panel after one year, the petitioner has no claim for appointment on Class IV post.
5. It appears that in the counter affidavit it has been stated that the name of the candidates who have qualification above matriculation have been incorporated in the district panel. The petitioner being an Intermediate has also been empaneled. It further appears from the counter affidavit that pursuant to an order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6255 of 2006, one Baidyanath Kumhar has been appointed in Class IV post. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said person was having the qualification of being a graduate.
6. In view of the fact that the eligibility of the petitioner cannot be doubted as the maximum level of educational criteria required in the advertisement has been struck down in the case of "Bivash Kumar" (supra) the claim of the petitioner for being considered on Class IV post on the basis of the fact that he is an Intermediate cannot be left aside by the respondent only on the ground that the petitioner is having higher qualification than what was required. Moreover, it appears that the persons from the District Panel have been appointed, although it is the contention of the respondent that the said panel was valid only for one year.
7. In such circumstances, therefore, in the interest of justice, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 3 along with supporting document, if any and if such representation is filed, respondent no. 3 shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of submission of the representation.
8. This writ application is disposed of, accordingly.
