- (1.) A. P. Sahi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Prakash Padia, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Wasim Alam for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
(2.) ALL the respondents have filed counter-affidavit to which reply has been filed by the petitioner. The challenge is to the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 10-2-05 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the appointment of the respondent No. 5 has been rejected and a finding has been recorded against the petitioner that he was not qualified and eligible to be appointed initially as he was less than 18 years of age on the date of his appointment. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 is not qualified for being appointed on the post, she does not possess the minimum educational qualification/experience as prescribed under the Arabic and Farsi Madarsa Rules 1981 (1987 sic) copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been further stated that the experience claimed by the respondent No. 5 is of a Junior High Schools and not of an institution which imparts education in Faukania. On the basis of the averments contained in the writ petition it has been further asserted that the impugned order is tainted with mala fides as the hearing was done by another officer and the order was passed by the successor in office and that the impugned order is in violation of principle of natural justice, and that it does not take notice of relevant material including the facts mentioned in the letter of the District Minority Social Welfare Officer, Mau dated 2-1-05.
(3.) IN reply Sri Wasim Alam has urged that the respondent No. 5 possesses the qualification and there is absolutely no deficiency in the same and that the impugned order records clear finding in favour of the respondent No. 5 which has not been successfully impeached by the petitioner on any legal ground. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the finding against the petitioner has urged that the finding recorded that the petitioner is below 18 years of age at the time of the initial appointment, and his continuance in service is contrary to law is untenable, in as much as the appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 1978 when there were no rules framed for appointment and the Government Servants Rules were not at all applicable to the controversy.;