RAJ BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). In response to an advertisement issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment as S.S. Master. He submitted attested copies of the Matriculation, B.A. and B.Ed. certificates and other relevant documents. The petitioner was interviewed by the selection committee. This selection became subject-matter of a challenge in a writ petition which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court. In Special Leave Averments made will have to be treated as correct. Petition, the Supreme Court did not disturb the appointment of the selected candidates but gave a direction to the respondents to once again interview those persons who had applied in response to the advertisement Annexure P-l and who were not selected. The petitioner was also subjected to second interview. This time again, the petitioner's name does not find place in the select list. According to the petitioner, this has been done because the respondents have not taken into consideration his qualification of B.Ed. The petitioner represented to the Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, who sought clarification regarding the case of the petitioner from the District Education Officer, Narnaul, calling upon him to explain as to why the petitioner has been treated as ineligible. The District Education Officer, Narnaul, reported that the petitioner has been treated ineligible under an erroneous assumption. Nevertheless the petitioner's candidature for appointment has not been considered and in this manner, he has been deprived of an opportunity of being selected and appointed as S.S. Master.

(2.) Petitioner's assertion is that he had passed the B.Ed. examination in April, 1988 from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. He had lost his marksheet of the B.Ed. examination and, therefore, secured a duplicate copy of the same, which was issued to him on 20.8.1991. The respondents had treated him ineligible on the ground that last date for submission of the application was 10.8.1991 and he had passed B.Ed. on 20.8.1991. According to the petitioner, he had in fact passed the B.Ed. examination in 1988 and, therefore, on the last date fixed for the receipt of the applications, he had the requisite qualifications to his credit and the respondents have erroneously treated him ineligible to be considered for appointment.

(3.) No reply has been filed even though last opportunity was given to the respondents to do so vide order dated 8.9.1994. In all a period of more than five months was given to the respondents to file reply. In the absence of any reply to the writ petition, the averments made in the writ petition will have to be treated as correct.