CHITRA PATEL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties are present.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement No. 21/2016 and as per terms and conditions of advertisement and particularly Rule 9 (i) of the rules of the year 2015, 25% of the total vacancy was reserved for the primary trained teachers who have working experience of 5 years and 75% was from direct recruitment. It was also mentioned that if the candidates for 25% seats are not available, then the candidates from open category would fill up those vacancies. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had applied in open category and was also declared amongst the successful candidates but he could not be selected in 75% category as he was the next candidate after those who were finally selected. The learned counsel also submits that the 25% reserved post remained unfilled and therefore respondents were under legal obligation to fill up the same from amongst the direct candidates who have applied in 75% category. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 5700 of 2018 and other analogous cases and he refers to the prayer whiwch has been quoted in the said judgment with respect to W.P. (S) No. 5700 of 2018 and W.P. (S) No. 3816 of 2019. He submits that similar relief is being sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition also and therefore the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. The learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid judgement, the recruitment process in the non-schedule areas has been directed to be concluded as per eligibility criteria and vacancy position, in accordance with law.