- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this appeal, the petitioner in the writ petition (CWJC No. 1401 of 2001), has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.6.2002 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the appointment to respondent No. 3 to the post of Director, Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry and Allied Sciences, Kanke. Ranchi and on the further ground that the respondent No. 3 did possess the requisite qualification, as can be seen from the counter -affidavit.
(3.) AS regard the first aspect, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a fact that the appellant had not applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement, but still the appellant is entitled to show that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was illegal, since respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification as per the advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post in question. Apparent confusion regarding the qualification of respondent No. 3 is clear from Annexure -C produced along with the affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary. Medical Education and Research Department to Health. Government of Jharkhand and Annexure -C produced indicating that the Screening Committee, on receipt of applications, took the view that unless the conditions that the candidate should possess the qualification of teaching experience in terms of the notification, is waived, none of the applications would be considered. So, according to the appellant, respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification. But, according to respondent No. 3 he did possess the qualification regarding teaching experience as can be seen from his documents produced. It may be noted that the subsequent correspondence between the appointing authority and the Army Headquarters indicates that by applying the relevant norms, respondent No. 3 can claim to possess the necessary teaching experience insisted upon by the notification. However, we think that it is not necessary to go into these questions at this stage. We find that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was on a contractual basis and it was for three years, and the period would expire on 14.9.2003. We find some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appointment of respondent No. 3 on contractual basis was not justified, especially when this Court had earlier directed that regular appointment to the post of Director should be made ex -peditiously, and the present appointment should have been set aside on that ground.;