R.K.MERATHIA,J. - (1.) THIS writ application was filed for, quashing the communication dated 31.12.1993 (Annexure -10) sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih to the State Government, expressing his inability to make appointments from the so called merit list prepared in the year 1989 and rejecting the prayer of the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the Deputy Commissioner to consider to appoint the petitioner.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner in short is that she applied for the post of Assistant pursuant to the Advertisement No. OC 15/ 1988 published in newspaper 'Aaj' (Ranchi edition) on 7.8.1988. She appealed in the interview pursuant to the interview card issued on 4.1.1991. Out of the same advertisement, interview for reserved, post was done on 22.12.1990 and on the recommendation of District Selection Committee appointment letters were issued to the candidates of reserved category on 7.1.1991. She was the only woman candidate in merit list and as per the roster she was entitled for appointment'. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih was competent to appoint Class -III employees, but he arbitrarily withheld the appointment letter to the petitioner and other candidates who were in general category on some pretext or other. Being aggrieved by the said action, she filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 1190/1992(R) which was disposed of on 21.11.1993 with the observations and directions that if vacant posts are still available and the penal still survives, appointment letter in accordance with law as against the sanctioned posts in question be issued to the petitioner. As per the said order of High Court, the Deputy Commissioner took up the matter of all the general candidates including the petitioner. The recommendation of the authorized committee was sought by the Deputy Commissioner. Ultimately by the impugned order dated 31.12.1993 the Deputy Commissioner considered the matter as pier the said order of the High Court and rejected the claim of the petitioner and another for their appointments from the merit list prepared in the year 1989. He found that the said merit list was doubtful and as such no appointments were made from the said merit list of the year 1989, from general category and in any event the said merit list did not survive.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the said order dated 31.12.1993 in this writ petition. On 16.3.1994 it was ordered that this writ application will be heard by a Division Bench, fixing the date of hearing as 9th May, 1994. This is how this writ petition has come up for hearing before the Division Bench.;