RUBI KUMARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the petitioners are not selected as Lady Supervisors by the respondents, mainly for the reasons that the respondents have not followed the prescribed Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 procedure and secondly for the reason that the respondents have wrongly fixed the eligibility criteria, according to which only few Graduates will be eligible for applying to the post of Lady Supervisor and, as stated in the public advertisement priority ought to have been given to the petitioners, as they are belonging to the Giridih District and, therefore, the petitioner's case has been wrongly discarded by the respondents.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondent -State, who has submitted that there is no breach of any of the laws, rules or regulations by the respondents, in appointing the Lady Supervisors. The present petitioners were given all opportunities to compete with other candidates. Looking to the number of applications for the post of Lady Supervisors, initially a scrutiny test was taken, which is a written test, Thereafter, oral interview was also taken. Both the petitioners were given such opportunities. They have appeared at the written test and, thereafter, they were also selected for the oral interview. They were invited for the oral interview. They have appeared at the oral interview. Looking to the comparative merits, all the candidates have been given the marks and the present petitioners have not been selected and, therefore, this writ petition is not tenable, once they have appeared in the written test as well as the oral interview. Moreover, these petitioners are not the power of attorney holders of all other Graduates, who are not eligible, as per the advertisement, because the petitioners have already been given chance to appear at the written test as well as oral interview. But, now not having been selected, they have preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case: