MISS SAJIDA KHAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the advertisement dated 06/07/2020 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner who is aspirant to be appointed as a Librarian has challenged the advertisement on the ground that the minimum qualification prescribed in advertisement for appointment of a Librarian is contrary to the Rules and therefore cannot be given effect to.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that the petitioner though possess the minimum qualification according to the Rules namely Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 but contrary to it the advertisement has prescribed the minimum percentile of 50% for application for Librarian. It is stated the petitioner holds the qualification according to the Rules of 2019 but by prescribing the condition contrary to Rules the petitioner cannot be deprived to apply for the post. He would further submit that the petitioner would be otherwise at the top of the list but for the reason that the petitioner had not secured 50% in graduation she has been deprived to apply. He would further submit that in the advertisement the qualification which has been prescribed is dehors the Rules, therefore cannot be given effect to. Consequently, the appointment if so made on the basis of such advertisement would also be wrong.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the respondent No.2 within its authority for betterment of the standard of the school has prescribed the qualification of 50% marks in the graduation which cannot be said to be against the Rules as the Rules only prescribe the minimum qualification and in order to set a standard the respondent No.2 was within its right to prescribe the minimum qualification percentile. Learned counsel relies on a case law in between Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and ors. reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362. He further submits that the petitioner having participated in the process of selection since has not been selected cannot turn around and question the entire process of selection. He placed his reliance in case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454.