SANKAR CHOWHAN Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the cases same and similar questions are involved. The fact leading to filing of both the cases are as follows : On requisition from the Panchayat Department, the Public Service Commission floated an advertisement bearing No. 7/95 dated 1.11.1995 (Annexure-1) inviting application from the eligible candidates for filling up few posts of Panchayat Officer Group 'C' non-gazetted posts prescribing among others the essential qualifications as (i) Degree of a recognised University, (ii) Training in Rural Development and extension service.

(2.) The petitioners in both the cases applied for the said posts besides other private respondents No. 4 to 12 in Civil Rule No. 137 of 1997 and 4 to 8 in Civil Rule No. 478 of 1998 also applied. All were faced the interview/ test both written and viva voce, but the private respondents have been selected while the petitioners were not. Hence, they filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending inter alia, that the petitioners having requisite essential qualification were denied the due consideration by Public Service Commission while the private respondents having no requisite qualificatibn were allowed to face the interview and were also selected and subsequently appointed and in doing so the Public Service Commission not only committed wrong and illegality by allowing the ineligible candidates, private respondents but also denied the right of the petitioners to be treated fairly and, as such, it is violative of Article 14/16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) From the Annexure-1 in Civil Rule No. 137 of 1997 the advertisement which is available as Annexure-IV in Civil Rule No. 478 of 1998 tit reveals that the required essential qualifications arc as follows: