NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI Vs. HARENDRA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 461 of 1999 (Harendra Kumar Singh v. the Union of India and others), whereby the original application preferred by respondent No. 1 herein has been allowed, and the authorities have been directed to appoint the applicant (respondent No. 1 herein) as Lower Division Clerk.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. In order to appoint a lower division clerk in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kadirabad, Darbhanga, the authorities had sent requisition dated 26.7.1996 (Annexure-R/2), to the local Employment Exchange. Twenty names were received who were interviewed on 19.12.1996, but the further process was stayed by the District Magistrate. On 11.12.1997, the District Magistrate directed the Principal of the School to proceed further in the matter. By his communication dated 6.4.1998, the Principal sought guidelines from petitioner No. 2 herein. By his communication dated 7.4.1998, petitioner No. 2 directed the Principal to cancel the requisition and call for fresh names from the Employment Exchange. Consequently the Principal sent fresh requisition dated 9.4.1998. In response to the same, the Employment Exchange recommended twenty names which included respondent No. 1 herein. Typing test and viva-voce test were held on 15.5.1998, the panel was prepared on 18.5.1998, and was forwarded on the same date to petitioner No. 2. The Principal had recommended the name of respondent No. 1 for appointment. By his communication dated 14.10.1998, petitioner No. 2 had called for the bio-data of respondent No. 1. The Principal complied with the order and forwarded the bio-data on 23.10.1998. By his communication dated 18.3.1999 (annexure-8), petitioner No. 2 refused to accord approval of appointment of respondent No. 1, for the reason that he did not measure up to the prescribed qualification. The order further stated that one Pradeep Kumar, a lower division clerk working elsewhere, was posted in the school in question. The Principal issued the consequent office order dated 22.3.1999 (Annexure-9), dispensing with the services of respondent No. 1, leading to the original application which has been allowed by the impugned order, and the authorities have been directed to consider his case afresh after relaxation of the age-bar. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the authorities.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the validity of the order of the Tribunal on diverse grounds.