AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, learned counsel representing the B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura as also learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 7. Petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Administrator, Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Patna as contained in Annexure '15' to the writ application by which the appointment of private respondent no. 7 on the post of Manager in the Trust in question has been upheld and the objection of the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the advertisement issued by the concerned Trust, the candidates desirous of being considered for the post of Manager had to be a graduate on the date of filling up of the application form. In this regard he has relied upon the advertisement (Annexure 1) which specifically states that the applicant should apply through registered post in the office of the Secretary, Singheshwar Asthan Nyas Samiti by 20.07.2015 by way of an application along with his educational qualification and experience certificates which should be self attested. The interview for the said post was fixed on 02.08.2015. It is submitted that the private-respondent no. 7 in this case was not having his graduation certificate on 20.07.2015 because his result of the second year graduation was yet not published. The final result declaring the respondent no. 7 a pass in graduation was published only on 05.03.2016, therefore, the consideration of the candidature of the private-respondent is not in accordance with the terms of the advertisement.

(3.) It is submitted that once the advertisement has placed a condition with regard to availability of the educational certificate while applying latest by 20.07.2015, no application could have been submitted without certificates. It is submitted that many a candidates who were in identical position with that of the private respondent, it is possible having taken a fair view did not apply, therefore, it would be a totally unreasonable and arbitrary act on the part of the respondent trust to consider the application of the respondent no. 7 for appointment on the post of Manager even though he was unable to submit his application together with the essential educational qualification certificate. It is submitted that if this practice is allowed to exist then there will be possibility of unfairness and favoritism in the matter of appointment. An employer may then get a person of his choice applied without certificate and can delay the process of appointment for such time as may be required to accommodate his choice of candidate to enable him to obtain the certificate. This according to him would not be a fair play in action.