SUCHITA TOPPO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, appearing for the petitioner that a panel was prepared in which the name of respondent no. 5 was at serial no. 1 and the petitioner's name was on serial no. 2. Respondent no. 5 was appointed, but her appointment was not approved by the District Education Officer, Gumla on the ground that she did not possess the requisites qualification. The petitioner being second in the list should have been given appointment, but thereafter neither petitioner was given appointment nor any process has been started for appointment.

(2.) Mr. Das, appearing for the School-respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted that it is settled position that selection does not give right to claim appointment. The managing committee decided to cancel the earlier advertisement and to start a fresh process and as soon as approval is granted for the same by the concerned authority, fresh process will be started and petitioner may also apply against such advertisement.

(3.) On being asked, Mr. Das submitted that sanctioned posts of teachers are vacant, but he is not in a position to say, whether there is requirement or not.