G LATHIKA Vs. RUBBER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P4 Press Report to the effect that for appointment as Junior Rubber Technologist, O.B.C. candidates with B. Tech. Qualification in Polymer Science and Rubber Technology and one year's experience, or B. Tech in Chemical Engineering and one year's experience or five year's experience in Polymer Technology and a Diploma in Polymer Technology could apply caught the attention of the petitioner. From the Employment Exchange where she had registered she came to know that the vacancy was in the 1st respondent - Rubber Board. As per Ext. P7 notification issued by the 1st respondent on 6.10.1995 the qualifications actually prescribed for the said post were B. Tech Degree in Polymer Science and Rubber Technology with a minimum of one year experience in Rubber Products Development/Testing or Diploma in Polymer Technology or Rubber Technology with five years experience in Rubber Product Manufacture.

(2.) The petitioner who registered herself in the Employment Exchange found that she was not called for interview though her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore she sent Ext. P5 representation and was told by the Board, vide Ext. P6, that her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange only two months after the last date prescribed in the notification and therefore she could not be considered. The petitioner thereupon filed O.P. No. 4836 of 1996 before this Court and in Ext. P9 judgment this court noticing the fact that the appointment had not yet been made, directed that the petitioner should also be interviewed and the selection made taking into account the result of such interview also. As per Ext. P10 the petitioner was informed that she was not selected. Thereupon she sent Ext. P11 notice through her lawyer and in Ext. P12 reply the petitioner was informed by the Board through the lawyer concerned that the post had been intended to be filled up in the Laboratory at Calcutta and that subsequently the proposal was discontinued and hence the select list drawn on 11.1.1996 (Ext. P8) wherein the present second respondent's name figures as holder of 1st rank was cancelled. The petitioner's grievance is that inspite of the said specific statement, the second respondent was admitted by the Rubber Board through back door on 21.8.1997. It is also pointed out that the second respondent has only a Diploma and not the Degree mentioned as the main qualification in the notification.

(3.) The standing counsel for the Rubber Board, who was heard, submitted that it was without noticing the fact that Ext. P8 selection list had been cancelled that Ext. R2(c)appointment was issued to the 2nd respondent on 21.8.1997 and that if there was any mistake or wrong committed by the Board, the Board was prepared to make amends.