- (1.) AT the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the appeal is being disposed off finally.
(2.) APPELLANT/petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Single Bench pleading therein that he is holding the qualification of B.Sc.(Maths) and in pursuance of Advertisement dated 12.08.2008, he was selected and appointed on the post of Junior Technical Assistant on contract basis for a period of one year from 24.12.2008 to 24.12.2009. Thereafter, respondents issued a Circular dated 18.09.2009, wherein it was directed that the persons holding minimum educational qualification of Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering, will be appointed on the post of Junior Technical Assistant and the persons who are not holding the said qualification, will not be allowed to continue. On completion of one year, service period of appellant was not extended. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 13.11.2009, hence, appellant has preferred this intra-Court appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that he has filed an additional affidavit before this Court stating therein that respondents have again issued a Circular dated 26.03.2010, wherein it has been clarified that if any Junior Technical Assistant, who is working on contract basis, does not possess the qualification prescribed in the earlier Circular dated 18.09.2009, but in case his work performance is satisfactory, then his contract may be renewed. He has further stated that one person, namely Charan Singh, who is similarly situated with the appellant in educational qualification, has been allowed to continue. It is further stated that appellant filed a representation in pursuance of Circular dated 26.03.2010, but the same has not been considered so far. Counsel for the appellant also submited that he has filed another affidavit to the effect that some other persons, who are holding educational qualification of B.Sc.(Maths), have been allowed to work on the post of Junior Technical Assistant, therefore, respondents may be directed to consider the case of appellant and if it is found that similarly situated persons are working on the post of Junior Technical Assistant, then the case of appellant may also be considered. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that so far as Charan Singh is concerned, he was allowed to continue on his post because of interim order passed by this Court, but so far as alleged other persons working at Barmer are concerned, he has no instructions as the said fact has been given in another additional affidavit, therefore, he could not file any reply to it. However, he submitted that in case any person similarly situated with the appellant, is continuing, then the case of appellant will be considered, sympathetically. He further submitted that appellant may be directed to file a fresh representation and the same will be considered, in accordance with law, at the earliest.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that appellant is holding educational qualification of B.Sc.(Maths). He was initially appointed on the post of Junior Technical Assistant on contract basis for a period of one year. Subsequently, qualification of the said post was changed. Since appellant was not possessing the required qualification as per amended Circular, therefore, his services were not extended. Since appellant has filed an affidavit to the effect that similarly situated persons possessing qualification of B.Sc.(Maths), are working with the respondents on the post of Junior Technical Assistant, as agreed by the learned counsel for respondents that in case any other similarly situated person is working on the said post, then the case of appellant will also be considered sympathetically. In these circumstances, we are of the view that appellant may be granted a liberty to file a representation and respondents may be directed to decide the same, afresh, and in case any similarly situated person is found working on the said post, then the case of appellant may also be considered for appointment. ;