(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the final selection and appointment of Assistant Teachers made pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/12 under the respondents-Netarhat Residential School so far it relates to the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the ground that the petitioner has more length of service than respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 7, in fact, was a newly appointed Teacher.
(2.) His claim is also based on assertion that he fulfills all the academic and training qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement and has excellent academic records, which has been totally ignored while assessing his candidature vis-a-vis other candidates. It is contention of the petitioner that he has been working in the capacity of Assistant Teacher in the Department of Physics since 17.9.1990 on purely daily wages basis in the respondent School and it would also be evident from the certificate dated 17.7.2012 issued by the Principal of Netarhat Residential School, which is annexed as Annexure-14 series to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that earlier he had occasion to approach before the Patna High Court alongwith others in the year 1997. On the said occasion, he preferred L.P.A. No. 261 of 1999(R) where the matter was disposed of with an observation that if the appellant i.e. the present petitioner, applies for permanent appointment under advertisement, which were to be published by the BPSC, the respondents shall consider the experience claimed by the appellant in the said school for the purpose of selection on the permanent post. He further submits that in the advertisement, which has been issued in the year 2012 being Advertisement No. 1/12, Annexure-12, the incumbent like the petitioner, who had continued on the post of Teachers/Instructors/Employees appointed on contract/Daily Wages basis in Netarhat Residential School on or before 15.12.2009 will be eligible for applying for the advertised posts and they will be given one time relaxation from upper age limit, provided they are found fit on all other grounds. It is contention of the petitioner that the evaluation of the petitioner's candidature has been done in erroneous manner while evaluating his academic points. He has been awarded 54 points discarding the result of B.Ed. qualification which he has obtained from Annamalai University. According to the petitioner, in the said B.Ed. exam, he was awarded 1st class in written examination and 2nd class in practical examination, but the respondents have awarded points for 2nd class marks while evaluating his academic points. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that long experience of length of service as daily wager Teacher in the residential school should have been taken into account by the respondents while preparing the merit list. He has been placed at serial No. 3 in the merit list below the person namely Satish Jha, who was also teacher in the said residential school, and has lesser length of service. In the circumstances, the official respondents have discriminated in evaluation of the candidature of the petitioner. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 6 should be quashed and the petitioner being next in the list should be appointed in his place as he has higher length of service and excellent academic records in school.
(3.) The respondents, on their part, have submitted that the petitioner has consciously participated in the selection of Assistant Teacher in Advertisement No. 1/12, which prescribed the relevant criteria for appointment to the post of Teacher in the residential school. After having participated and failed in the selection test, it is not open to him to allege infirmity in the recruitment exercise as he had participated with full knowledge and consciousness. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits on the basis of statement made in para-7 to the said counter affidavit that 60 points were earmarked for academic qualification i.e. 12 points for 1st Division, 6 points for 2nd Division and 0 points for 3rd Division respectively for each academic qualification starting from Matriculation, 12th, Graduation, Master and B.Ed. He submits that the petitioner's academic qualification has been taken into account and in the overall marks in the B.Ed. examination undisputedly, he had come in the second class category for which he has been given six points only. His marks of B.Ed. examination could not have been evaluated by splitting his written and practical examination and therefore, the evaluation process does not suffer from any infirmity. He further submits that Advertisement No. 1/12 stipulates counting of experience in the said school, which was also desired eligibility criteria as per the said advertisement. TI academic experience of the petitioner and other experienced teachers in the said school was reckoned with while considering their candidature in the said selection examination, but no separate marks have been earmarked for the experience, as claimed by the petitioner. He submits that in the circumstances, the merit list of the candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher in the said school against two vacancies of Physics teachers were prepared in which petitioner's name appears at serial No. 3 and the name of the respondent No. 6 at serial No. 2 as he got more marks in interview i.e. 35 compared to present petitioner, who got 34 marks. Therefore, in the total marks, respondent No. 6 got 89 marks while the petitioner got 88 marks. He further submits that no ground for any interference in the said exercise are made out as no case for mala fide is established by the petitioner in the said selection exercise. The petitioner should not be granted any relief in the present writ petition as the selected teachers have already joined and serving in the respondents-School. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the relevant materials on records. The petitioner, undisputedly, was working as Assistant Teacher on purely daily wages basis from 17.9.1990 in the respondent-Netarhat Residential School. In the said advertisement No. 1/12, such persons, who were working on contract/daily wages in the said school, were allowed to apply for advertised post by giving one time relaxation from upper age limit, provided they are found fit on all other grounds. The terms of Advertisement also indicated that their teaching experience/other experience in Netarhat Residential School shall also be counted as required teaching experience/other experience in terms of qualification laid down for appointment as Teachers/Instructors in the said school. Academic qualifications are shown in the said advertisement itself and apart from that in the right side of the column, desired eligibility experience is shown as teaching experience in the senior secondary/plus 2 residential school. However, it is clear that in the process of evaluation, marks were only earmarked for the academic qualifications and interview and no marks were earmarked for teaching experience. The respondents have followed the criteria prevalent under the advertisement uniformly and thereafter on evaluation of marks, merit list has been prepared in which petitioner has also come at serial No. 3. The observation made in LPA No. 261/99(R) dated 3.11.1999, so far as experience gained by the petitioner in the school is concerned, it appears to have been given consideration by virtue of the stipulation contained in the advertisement No. 1/12 while considering the case of such persons including the present petitioner, who were teaching in the school on contract/daily wages basis. The petitioner has also participated in the recruitment exercise consciously with full knowledge of the terms and conditions under which the said exercise was carried out. After having participated and failed in the selection exercise, therefore, it is otherwise not open to him to challenge the selection exercise conducted in uniform and fair manner on the criteria laid down. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the present writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.