RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. SACHIV BASIC SHIKSHA BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The Appellant is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.9.2010, whereby the approval granted by order dated 23.9.2006 insofar as the appointment of the Appellant herein is concerned has been quashed. The learned Single Judge has further directed the Management to recommend the name of the candidate selected by the Selection Committee in the interview held, as reflected in the proceedings, which have been produced before the Court.

(3.) The grievance of the Appellant was that his name was duly recommended by the Committee of Management and as such he was appointed. As the controversy was raised and considering the finding of the learned Single Judge, we had called upon the Respondents to produce the records and accordingly, the records were produced before us and we find that the application of the Appellant was very much on record and, in fact, his name has been recommended by the duly Selection Committee. The other aspect of the matter is that apart from the Appellant, no other candidate has been recommended. To that extent, fairly speaking, the consequential direction issued by the learned Single Judge cannot really be supported.