Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 26.8.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1, by which the claim of the petitioner for the selection on the post of Junior Clerk has been denied. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.8.1998, petitioner applied for the selection of Junior Clerk, Petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 13.12.1998. By call letter dated 5.2.1999, the petitioner was called to appear in the typing test on 13.2.1999 and the result of the written test was declared by the respondents. However, the petitioner has not been selected on the ground that on a consideration of the marks of the typing test which was considered to be the essential qualification, the petitioner did not qualify. Being aggrieved by the said action, petitioner filed the writ petition No. 7660 of 1999 with the contention that the qualification of the Hindi typing was preferential qualification and not essential qualification and the same could not be considered for the purposes of selection and the question for consideration of the preferential qualification may only come for consideration when the marks of two candidates become equal. This Court vide order dated 9.9.2005 has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview. The petitioner appeared in the interview and got 6.600 marks. The total marks obtained by the petitioner thus comes to 39.00. However, petitioner has been denied selection by the impugned order on the ground that as per the Government Order Hindi Typing was essential qualification and by mistake in the advertisement it has been shown as preferential qualification and since the marks of nine candidates are higher than the petitioner's marks, therefore, petitioner is not eligible for selection. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court in the earlier writ petition has already held that Hindi typing qualification was only preferential qualification and not essential qualification and could be considered only in a situation when the two candidates could get equal marks. He submitted that the order of this Court has become final inasmuch as no appeal has been filed against the said order. He, however, referred paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition to show that on exclusion of the typing marks, the marks of the petitioner was higher than the other six candidates, namely, Sanjeev Kumar, Uma shankar Rakwar, Rajendra Sharan Rakwar, Shishupal, Vishnu Kumar and Santosh Kumar who obtained only 37.265, 36.40, 32.265, 32.355, 31.70 and 30.10 marks while the petitioner obtained 39.00 marks excluding typing test and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for selection. He further submitted that the averments made in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition has not been denied in the counter affidavit which has been replied vide paragraphs 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel is not able to dispute the averments made in paragraphs 12 and 13. He however, submitted that in the advertisement dated 10.8.1998 inadvertently the Hindi typing qualification has been shown as preferential qualification while it was the essential qualification and the selection was to be made after taking into account the marks of Hindi typing also and if the marks of the typing could be considered, the position of the petitioner was lower to the other candidates, who have been selected and, therefore, the petitioner has rightly not been selected. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and other documents annexed with the writ petition.;