SUNILA Vs. SUNITA RANI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal impugns the order dated 29.04.2011 whereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 to the extent that appointment of appellant as Lecturer in Hindi [School Cadre] was quashed and respondent No. 1 has been ordered to be appointed in her place.

(2.) The appellant is a differently-abled person. She applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi [School Cadre] in response to Advertisement dated 13.09.2008 wherein the requirement of passing of State Teachers' Eligibility Test [for short 'STET'] was not prescribed as an essential qualification. It is, however, an admitted fact that as per the Statutory Rules amended on 24.07.2008, the STET was a mandatory eligibility condition. The appellant was selected as per the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. Her selection and appointment has been set aside by the learned Single Judge at the instance of respondent No. 1 for lack of the requisite qualification of STET as per the Statutory Rules. The first respondent who was in possession of such a qualification, has been ordered to be appointed. It also deserves to be mentioned here that after the advertisement dated 13.09.2008 was issued, the STET was held on 01.10.2008 and its result was declared on 15.10.2008. The appellant did not appear in that test under the bona-fide impression that such a qualification was not necessary to be passed for the advertised posts.

(3.) Two views are possible. The one taken by the learned Single Judge on literal interpretation of the Statutory Rules which holds that once the field, on the relevant date, was occupied by the Rules, then the qualification prescribed under such Rules ought to have been adhered to. The second view is that the candidates were required to fulfill the eligibility conditions as per the Public Notice.