- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner applied for the post of Prabhodhak in pursuance to the advertisement (Annex.4) inviting applications for the said post. The petitioner has been denied appointment only on the ground that she was not possessing the requisite teaching experience of five years. The petitioner has placed on record the certificate (Annex.3) duly issued by the School countersigned by the District Education Officer wherein her teaching experience has been shown from 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2008. However, in place of 30.6.2008, the Additional District Education Officer made correction and made it 25.6.2008. By this deduction of five days, the petitioner is said to have not completed five years teaching experience. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said authority had no jurisdiction to reduce the teaching experience which has been certified by the School without passing any order and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(3.) From the facts referred above, it is clear that the petitioner completed five years teaching experience and she was eligible on this count and her appointment could not have been denied on this count. The petitioner was called for interview but her marks have not been taken into account in the interview. In view of the above reasons, since the petitioner has already completed five years teaching experience and was eligible for consideration to the post of Prabhodhak provided she otherwise fulfills all other qualifications including of obtaining minimum marks in the merit, then the petitioner be given appointment and if she has not been given marks in the interview, then the respondents may interview the petitioner and may award the marks. The said process be completed within two months of receipt of this order which may be sent by the petitioner to the competent authority.;