KAMAYANI KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE W.P.(S) No. 2762/2008 and 5703/2008 involve common facts and question of law, and as such, both the petitioners are being considered by this common order. Challenge in W.P.(S) No. 2762 of 2008 is to the select list dated 06.12.2005 (Annexure P/5) wherein the name of respondent No. 3 i.e. Prabodh Kumar Adhikari (for short 'Adhikari') has been placed in the waiting list for appointment on the post of Principal (DIET), the order dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P/4) whereby Adhikari was appointed on the aforesaid post. Further, a direction to the respondent/State and the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (for short 'the PSC') to appoint the petitioner i.e. Smt. Kamayani Kashyap (for short 'Ms. Kamayani') as Principal (DIET).

(2.) IN W.P. (S) No. 5703 of 2008 also, the same order and the select list are under challenge and the petitioner herein i.e. Alok Sharma (for short 'Sharma'), also seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him as Principal (DIET).

(3.) SHRI Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Kamayani would submit that Adhikari was not qualified to be appointed as Principal (DIET) because he had no experience of working as Principal of Higher Secondary School and also of teaching from class 1 to 8 but even then, he was appointed as Principal (DIET), vide order dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P/4). In the same way, the name of Sharma could also not be included in the supplementary list for the post of Principal (DIET), as he was also not having the requisite qualification. Thus, in that situation, Ms. Kamayani was most suitable for appointment as Principal (DIET) as she was fulfilling all the criteria as prescribed in the Madhya Pradesh School Education District Institute of Education and Training (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules, 1991'). Shri Tamaskar would rely on the comparative chart (Annexure P/7) wherefrom it would be clear that Ms. Kamayani is more meritorious and fulfills all the requisite qualification for holding the post of Principal (DIET). In an identical situation, the selection of two candidate namely Ajay Vishwas and Smt. Kishwar Begum were rejected on account of not holding the requisite experience, which is evident from the information (Annexure P/6) received by Ms. Kamayani under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. Shri Tamaskar would further submit that earlier, the application of Sharma was rejected by the respondent No. 2 on account of not having requisite qualification and experience.