(1.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that in response to the advertisement (Annexure - II to the writ petition) published by the respondents -bank i.e. Bank of Maharashtra (Govt. of India Enterprise), Branch Shillong, the petitioner applied for the post of Sub -Staff in the year 2011. The interview was held on 7 -11 -2011 but the result was not declared. On this, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 71 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 30th July, 2012 directing the respondent -bank to declare the select list. The petitioner has pleaded in the present petition that the petitioner topped the list of selected candidates as he secured 75 marks (out of 90 marks) as against the 57 marks secured by the second position holder namely, Ebapyngshngainlang Lyngdoh (Respondent No. 4). The petitioner's case is that even after his name figured in the select list, he was not given the appointment. It is further pleaded that the petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 for disclosure of reason why the appointment was not given. Vide Annexure - XII to the writ petition, the appellate authority under Right to Information Act, 2005 of the respondent -bank from Kolkata Zonal Office informed that maximum age prescribed for the post of Sub -Staff was 28 years, and date of birth of the appellant (present petitioner) is 10 -1 -1981, as such, he was not eligible for the post. In the present petition, the petitioner has pleaded that being a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of 5(five) years, as such, he was fully eligible for the appointment to the post of Sub -Staff.
(3.) HOWEVER , the advertisement (copy at Annexure - II to the writ petition) published by the respondent -bank reads as under: