- (1.) WE have heard Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashok Singh, learned Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 to 5 and Shri Rajeev Misra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.6.
(2.) CHALLENGE herein is to the appointment of respondent no.6 as Dental Officer under the opposite party on the ground that she did not fulfil the minimum experience of three years, in spite of it, she has been appointed on the said post ignoring the candidature of the petitioner, who was not only eligible but also the most suitable candidate.
(3.) AN advertisement was issued in April, 2013 for selection and appointment on the post of Dental Officer in the newly established Ex -Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme Poly Clinic, Jaunpur (in short "ECHS Poly Clinic"). As per the terms and conditions of recruitment contained in the letter of the Union of India dated 22.9.2003 and the advertisement in question, the candidates were required to possess basic qualification of B.D.S. and three years minimum working experience. Apart from it, merit in BDS PG/Other Additional Qualification experience of more than 5 years was mentioned as a desirable attribute. The appointment was to be made on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs.25000/ - per month. The petitioner, respondent no.6 and others applied for consideration in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. The selection was held on 26th and 27th April, 2013. As per the merit list pertaining to the post in question relating to ECHS Poly Clinic, respondent no.6 was declared selected whereas the petitioner herein was mentioned as reserved I and Dr. Prashasti Mishra was mentioned as Reserved II. The aforesaid merit list along with other records was produced before us by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing. Based on the aforesaid, the Selection Committee, recommended the name of respondent no.6 for appointment. She was offered appointment on 12.2.2014 in pursuance to which she joined, which was challenged in this writ petition and this Court vide interim order dated 22.4.2014 restrained the respondents no.1 to 5 from making any payment of salary to her with the observation that in the event the work is taken from her, the same shall be at their own risk.;