Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. - (1.) This is a case of die-in- harness. The writ petitioner's name was recommended by the District Inspector of Schools. He was the sole candidate and his interview was held. However, the Managing Committee of the school was not willing to accept the writ petitioner as clerk in the school in view of the fact that the Selection Committee found the candidate unsuitable.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the reason for such observation is that the petitioner is not having type-written experience. He submits that this, is a case of die-in-harness and the writ petitioner was sponsored by the concerned District Inspector of Schools. According to the relevant rules applicable under Rule 4(2)(b)(i) type-written is not an essential qualification but a desirable one.
(3.) It was submitted that on that score the appointment of the writ petitioner cannot be refused. He submitted that both the Managing Committee and the Selection Committee failed to appreciate that this is a case of die-in-harness and the writ petitioner was recommended by the concerned District Inspector of Schools. Furthermore, he is the sole candidate who appeared at the interview. Therefore, there should not be any objection to give appointment to the writ petitioner upon giving approval. Merely because the petitioner do not have any type-writing experience, he should not be declared unsuitable by the Selection Committee. Therefore, he should be appointed.;