BINA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Final Merit List issued pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2015, to the extent it relates to the post of Tailor specially because the said merit list has been prepared completely ignoring Clause-7 of the said advertisement, which clearly provided that 'female candidate shall be appointed first and in absence thereof only a male candidate can be appointed.' Further prayer has been made to consider the claim of the petitioner and to appoint her to the post of tailor as the petitioner is a female candidate and has duly qualified in all the events i.e. physical as well as skill test.

(2.) The short facts in narrow compass is that in view of an advertisement No. 01/2015 floated by the respondents for appointment to the several posts including the post of Tailor, the petitioner, having requisite qualifications, applied for the same. In the said advertisement, it was clearly specified that there would be provisions for reservation for female and in case, the female candidate is not available then only the appointment of male candidate would be considered. It is the further case of the petitioner that petitioner along with other candidates appeared in the physical test on 19.10.2015 and was declared successful in the said physical test and roll number was allotted to her as 105. In the said successful candidates, out of 54 candidates, the petitioner was the only female candidate. Thereafter, the petitioner had duly appeared in the process of skill test and was given certain job of stitching some cloths, which was successfully and satisfactorily completed by the petitioner. It is specific case of the petitioner that as per the advertisement, the petitioner ought to have been appointed to the post of Tailor in view of Clause-7 of the aforesaid advertisement in preference to the appointment of other male candidates. Though the petitioner was declared successful in the physical test as well as skill test but to her utter surprise, respondent No. 3 was offered letter of appointment for the post of tailor by the respondents. Aggrieved by the said letter of appointment to the post of tailor of respondent No. 3, the petitioner has knock the door of this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that as per the Clause-7 of the advertisement, the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of tailor and respondents have illegally and arbitrary, appointed the respondent No. 3 dehors the rules. It is further stated that the petitioner was declared successful in all the events i.e. physical test as well as skill test. In the advertisement itself clause-7 is very much clear that in absence of any female candidate, then only a male candidate would have been appointed by the respondents but this is glaring example of the respondents though the petitioner was available as a female candidate in spite of that respondents choose to appoint the candidate of their own choice, who was a male candidate and as such, without any notice to the petitioner and without hearing her stand, the respondents have appointed respondent No. 3 to the post of tailor, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.