PONNAPPAN Vs. ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the second respondent acted illegally in making the appointment without issuing a fresh notification correcting the mistake that has occurred in Ext. P1 in regard to the fixing of qualification. As per Ext. R1 there is no necessity of the minimum educational qualification of VIIth standard as required in Ext. P1. No minimum educational qualifications are really prescribed for the post of E. D. Messengers and the applicant to the posts of E. D. Messenger need have only a working knowledge of local language and English. Prescribing VII standard as the minimum educational qualification in Ext. P1 is really as a result of a mistake. But, if a mistake has occurred in Ext. P1, what should have been properly done was the issuance of a fresh notice calling for applications.

(2.) But, in any view, as the vacancy is an open vacancy and not as such reserved for Schedule Castes and as the retrenched E. D. agent is entitled for preference over other applicants even on a proper notice, the 1st respondent was entitled to preferential right of getting appointed as against the petitioner. In this view, I do not think that I should set aside his appointment, but as the Department has committed a mistake in not issuing a fresh notice in respect of which the petitioner has got a grievance, I would direct the second respondent to pay the petitioner the costs of this proceedings-Advocate fee being fixed at Rs. 250/-.