ZAFOR IMAH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 2019 (ANNEXURE-X) passed by District School Education Officer, West Garo Hills District, Tura. This order has been passed in pursuance to order dated 04-06-2019 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 178 of 2019 wherein respondent No.5 had challenged the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in Bhaitbari Deficit U.P Madrassa School; New Bhaitbari, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya.

(2.) Managing Committee of Bhaitbari Deficit U.P Madrassa School; New Bhaitbari, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya issued an advertisement vide Advertisement Memo No. BDUPMS/Advt-1/MC/2019/39-A dated 22-02-2019 for recruitment of 1 (one) Assistant Teacher (Arabic) inviting applications to be submitted on or before 28-02-2019. The date of written examination as well as Viva was fixed as 04-03-2019. The petitioner along with other candidates had applied for the said post. The Managing Committee decided to allow all the candidates to seat in the examination which was conducted on 11-03-2019 wherein five candidates had appeared for the selection test. The result of the selection test was declared on 24- 05-2019. According to the petitioner, he was selected as Assistant Teacher (Arabic) and secured 1st rank whereupon he joined his duty on 26-05-2019. Respondent No.5 feeling aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner, preferred WP(C) No.178 of 2019 challenging the appointment wherein on 04-06-2019 this Court while disposing of the writ petition permitted respondent No.5 to file a comprehensive representation to respondent No.2 who was directed to take a decision thereon in a time-bound manner. On a representation filed by respondent No.5, respondent No.2 had passed an order on 25-07-2019 holding that the petitioner also did not fulfil the eligible qualification prescribed in the advertisement issued on 22-02-2019. In the impugned order ANNEXURE-X the essential qualifications have been noted as under: -

(3.) The respondent No.2 in the impugned order has drawn a comparative merit and after analysing the essential qualification noticed that the petitioner did not have the requisite 50% marks in H.S.S.L.C exam.