Probha Shanker Mishra, C.J. - (1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court disposing of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus upon the official respondents herein to issue letter of appointment in the name of the petitioner, respondent herein, according to the alleged original merit list (panel) dated 21st November, 1992 prepared by the Selection Committee for the post of Panchayat Peon in Barirfaai Block II by cancelling the panel wherein the appellant herein was shown as a competent person.
(2.) The writ petitioner, it is not in dispute, has the requisite qualification for the post since he studied upto and passed Class IX examination in the year 1975, besides he is a handicapped person. He got his same registered on 29th November, 1982 with the local District Employment Exchange at Basirhat and again as a handicapped person on 2nd April, 1991. According to him, ever since he had been waiting to secure a call for interview for Group-D category and at last on 16th October, 1992, he along with 19 others were included in the list of names which was forwarded by the Employment Exchange to the District. Paachayat Officer, North 24 Pargauas for selection in the post of Panchayat Peon in Basirhat Block II. The District Panchayat Officer, it is alleged, issued call letters to the candidates including the writ petitioner to appear on the 21st November, 1992 before the Selection Committee. On the said date, the petitioner-respondent appeared before the Selection Committee and submitted his certificates and testimonials. According to him, he was selected and his name was included at serial No. 1 in the panel. Since he was the only physically handicapped person and was at serial No. 1, he had ever since thus thought and bad every reason to think that he would get that appointment. However, on 3rd December, 1993, he came to know that a change was made in the pane) and a new panel was prepared wherein the appellant was shown at serial No. 1 is stated and place of the petitioner-respondent. Alleging that at the relevant time, the appellant had crossed the prescribed age limit and that he was a graduate and thus possessed much higher qualification than the qualification for the post of Class-IV staff/Peon in the Panchayat and also that the panel was arbitrarily changed, the petitioner respondent moved this Court.
(3.) Main contentions, as noticed by the learned Judge, however, ware whether in the post of Class-IV staff and/or Peon, a graduate candidate can be allowed to offer his/her candidature and whether & graduate candidate could he allowed to contest with a candidate having qualification upto Class-VIII and whether there was any imbalance in the qualification of the candidates allowed to appear before the Selection Committee. There was also a contest, however, as to whether on the relevant date of interview, the appellant had crossed the age bar.;