PANKAJ KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 04.05.2012 as passed in CWP No.4312/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition after finding meritless and belated the claim made by the petitioner for consideration of his case for recruitment to the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.06.2008. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that he had earlier filed a writ petition (CWP No.6938/2008) that was disposed of on 10.03.2010 directing the respondents to consider his case; and when the order was not given effect to, he filed a contempt petition (CCP No.272/2010) that was decided on 18.07.2011 on the basis of compliance report filed by the respondents about consideration and rejection of his case. It is submitted that after disposal of the earlier writ petition, the case of the appellant was rejected by the order dated 26.11.2010 with the Department taking stand that he had not completed five years of teaching experience. In this regard, it is contended that the period of appellant's absence from 17.11.2003 to 31.12.2003 and 06.07.2004 to 30.06.2006 has not been counted as part of teaching experience though the period of absence which is beyond the control of the person is required to be counted towards the part of experience. It is submitted that the appellant made the applications whereupon medical leave was duly sanctioned; and the respondents have erred in not considering such sanctioned medical leave. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground of delay though there was no such inordinate delay on the part of the appellant.

(2.) AFTER having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having perused the material on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in this matter. The substance of the matter remains that though the appellant claimed teaching experience for a period from 02.07.2002 to 07.06.2008 but within this period of about six years, the appellant had been on leave for more than two years. Even if the petitioner- appellant claims to have sought medical leave but, excessive leave for about two years from 06.07.2004 to 30.06.2006 makes it clear that he could not have been treated as having continuous teaching experience of five years in a recognised educational institution or project. The order dated 26.11.2010, thus, cannot be said to be unjustified.