BHAGIRATH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, in this writ petition, have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint them to the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure 1 dtd. 7/8/1988.

(2.) Both the petitioners argued their case in person. The petitioners claim that an advertisement was published in the year 1988 seeking application to fill up the post of Assistant Teachers in the erstwhile State of Bihar. Both these petitioners applied through the Employment Exchange. It is their case that the appointment process was completed only in the year 2001, but, these petitioners were not appointed. Their grievance is that applications were taken from different sources, i.e., through Employment Exchange, through Registered Post. They alleged that though these two modes were preferred modes, as per the advertisement, but, they alleged that a large number of candidates deposited their applications directly in the Offices, which were also considered by the respondents. They submit that under the Right to Information Act, they received information that there are no records available with the respondents, which would suggest how many and whose applications were sent through registered post, thus, they concluded that large number of applications were directly deposited in the Office, which was impermissible, thus, the entire selection process is bad since the applications sent through Employment Exchange and through Registered Post only should have been considered as per Clause 5 and 11 of the advertisement. They submit that the entire process should be declared illegal and the petitioners be appointed.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners are seeking appointment pursuant to an advertisement of 1988. The process was completed in 2001 and the petitioners have filed this writ petition in the year 2018, i.e., after 17 years of completion of the process, thus, they are not entitled to get any relief from this Court.