(1.) The petitioner is the unsuccessful candidate for the teaching post of PTI being less meritorious than respondent No. 4 and has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing his selection and appointment.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on October 18, 2003, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 382 posts of PTI Teachers in various leading newspapers (P-1). The last date for submission of the applications was November 7, 2003. The petitioner claimed that he has the qualification of M.A., B.A. and Certificate Course in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.) and that he was fully eligible in accordance with the qualification required to be fulfilled by the advertisement. He applied for the post under general(category and annexed all the certificates showing his educational qualification. He had also acquired experience of working as PTI in a recognized High School at Palwal and had duly attached the certificate of experience dated May 8, 2003, along with other certificates of participation in Sports (P-2 and P-3). The petitioner was called for interview on March 16, 2004. It is appropriate to mention that the criteria of selection was published by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No. 3 (for brevity 'the Commission'), on September 1, 2004 when the result of the selection was declared. The criteria adopted by the Commission is based on academic qualification and marks obtained in the interview which is as follows :-
(3.) It has been alleged by the petitioner that Pawan Kumar-respondent No. 4 has been selected on account of the influence exerted by one Mr. Mool Chand Sharma, a member of the Commission because respondent No. 4 is son of brother-in-law of Mr. Mool Chand Sharma. According to the assertion made in paras 7 and 8 of the petition, respondent No. 4 is simply a matriculate with IIIrd division and could not have been preferred over the petitioner who has a brilliant academic record along with the teaching experience.