S.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) The Sri Narendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who has put in appearance at this stage on advance notice, as well as Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4, who has appeared at this stage have also been heard.
(2.) The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby the order appointing the petitioner on the post of Extra Departmental Male Peon had been quashed with the direction to the respondent authority to appoint Mahabir Kashyap, the respondent No. 4 herein on the said post within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. It was further provided that the name of the petitioner be included in the waiting list of the Extra Departmental Agents discharged from service and in case no alternative appointment is available, the petitioner may be considered for fresh appointment as and when suitable vacancy arises.
(3.) It is not disputed that the minimum educational qualification for being considered for appointment as against the vacancy in question which stood prescribed was that the candidate must have passed VIIIth standard. However, it was also provided that the preference may be given to the candidates with matriculation qualification. No weightage was to be given to the qualifications higher than matriculation. It was further provided that the candidate should have sufficient working knowledge of the regional language and simple arithmetic so as to be able to discharge the duties satisfactorily.;