(1.) The order of appointment of the fifth respondent to the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the process of selection was improperly conducted. The ratio of 1:5 for sponsoring the name of the candidates from the Employment Exchange was not followed. Contrarily, the ratio of 1:3 was followed in violation of the Government Orders in force. This apart, the petitioner claims that he is also a meritorious candidates and inspite of that he was not selected without any valid reason. He further states that the fifth respondent even at the time of appointment was over aged and therefore, the selection was invalid.
(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 states that the respondents 1 to 4 states that the list of eligible candidates were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and by conducting the process of interview the meritorious candidates were selected. Thus, there was no irregularity in the process of selection. On a perusal of the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that except by stating that the officials conducted an interview there is no details regarding the manner through which such interview or selections were conducted. The marks awarded under various heads and merits are not explained in the counter. Mere decision of the interview committee is not sufficient to establish that the selection was conducted transparently and by following the established principles of law. Any selection must not only be transparent, but the procedure must ensure equal opportunity of the eligible candidates with reference to their comparative merits. Such an exercise cannot be done and no such averments are made in the counter. If such a procedure is being followed in the selection process, undoubtedly there is a possibility of favouritism and nepotism and corrupt activities.