Decided on June 15,2010

Hom Nath Sharma Appellant


Barin Ghosh,J. - (1.) Facts of this case are identical to those dealt with in Writ Petition No. 27/2007 by this Court today by rendering a judgment, in as much as all the petitioners herein belong to other back ward class category as the two petitioners, who did not succeed in the said writ petition, also belong to other backward class category. Learned Counsel for petitioners, however, submitted that this is a good case where this Court may interfere with the appointment of Tika Maya Rai, respondent No. 15, who did not have appropriate qualification, but was appointed, in as much as if her appointment goes, one of the petitioners, namely, Bhagwati Sharma, petitioner No. 17, would get a berth. I have not tried to ascertain whether if, in fact, appointment of Tika Maya Rai goes, Bhagwati Sharma can occupy her post. The advertisement made it clear that of 11 posts available for open merit category, two are reserved for women. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that in fact three posts were reserved for women, but by mistake the same was not stated in the advertisement. Fact remains that this error was not tried to be corrected by a corrigendum. An announcement made by an advertisement is binding and the same cannot be altered without a corrigendum to that effect being issued. Proceeding on the basis that such an error had taken place, Tika Maya Rai was given an appointment in the purported third reserved post for women in the open category. This could not be done without issuing a corrigendum, in as much as representation made through an advertisement is a representation to the world. The same cannot be altered without letting the world known that the alteration is a requirement. In the circumstances, in the instant case too there is no necessity of gong into the question whether Tika Maya Rai was appropriately appointed, inasmuch as, in case her appointment is interfered, the same having been given beyond the advertised notified reserved post cannot be supplied by any of the petitioners. I accordingly close the matter for reasons given in respect of other aspects raised in the present writ petition on the same analogy as given in the judgment rendered in the other writ petition referred to above. A copy of the said judgment be kept with the records of this case. Petition Disposed Off. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.