- (1.) HEARD Mr. A.R. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
(2.) THE grievance of the Writ Petitioner initially was that although he was successful in the Second Primary Teachers (Main) Examination, 1996 yet, when the result was published, some other candidate's name in place of the name of the Petitioner was shown and accordingly, the Petitioner had prayed that he should be given the corrected result. He had also prayed that he should be appointed on the post of Primary School Teacher for which the examination had been held and in which the Petitioner had qualified. In the Counter Affidavit, filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it has been stated at paragraph 4 that the entire matter was looked into and it was found that the Commission had made recommendation by their letter dated 25.11.1999 against 311 posts out of 400 in relation to the Second Primary Teachers (Main) Examination, 1996 which was held pursuant to advertisement No. 92/96. They have further stated on perusal of the said letter of communication, it was found that one Shankar Sardar had been mentioned against merit serial No. 256 and on verification it was found that it should actually have been tile Petitioner. They have further stated that taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, necessary correction has been made and necessary communication has also been sent.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the correction has already been made, there should now be no difficulty in considering the matter in relation to the second prayer of the Petitioner i.e. his consequential appointment. The Petitioner is therefore directed to approach the concerned appropriate authorities alongwith a copy of this order and also the corrected result and pray for consequential relief.;