DINESHWAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent no. 11. This writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Joint Secretary, State Election Commission, Bihar Patna (respondent no.5) by which respondent no.11 Rajeshwar Dayal has been appointed on the temporary basis on the post of Computer Operator.

(3.) IT appears that the Election Commission took steps for appointment to the two vacant posts of Computer Operator and called for names from the employment exchange. The eligibility criteria for appointment as mentioned in the said letter, as copy of which has been annexed a Annexure -1 to the writ application, is that the candidate should be the post graduate in Physics/Mathematics/Statistics/Economics/Research work/Computer Science with 50% marks. The candidate were also required to have knowledge of Computer Programme and in the alternative the qualification required for the said post was that the candidate should be the graduate in Physics/Mathematics/Statistics/Economics/Computer Science from the recognised institution. The candidate should possess the 50% marks in graduation as well as diploma in computer. Apart from this qualification the candidate was also required to have two years experience of computer programme. The employment exchange sent the name of eighteen candidates. A selection committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Special Secretary, Science and Technology, namely, A.K. Pandey. Thirteen persons appeared before the Selection Committee. In its meeting held on 6.4.96 the committee recommended the name of respondent no.11 as first name, the petitioner as second name and one Smt. Vidha Kusum as third name, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -R/11 -C to the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.11. In pursuance of that recommendation the Election Commissioner appointed respondent no.11 on the said post by order dated 15th April, 96 contained in Annexure -2, which has been impugned in this case.