TINKAL KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 20.3.2013. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners were working on daily wages as Data Entry Operator. An advertisement was issued in which the petitioners appeared and participated in the selection process, however since they were not selected, they were not offered appointment. They filed representation and since representation of the petitioners were not decided, they approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 6965 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 11.1.2013 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur (respondent No. 2) to decide the representation of the petitioners. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner has been adjudicated and by an order dated 20.3.2013, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in the advertisement it has not been indicated that the marks obtained in the cycle test would be added for preparing the final list of successful candidates, however, in the impugned order dated 20.3.2013, it appears that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by taking into account the marks obtained in the cycle test and interview.