S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for her appointment as a Prerak (Motivator). The specific plea raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that she has been illegally and arbitrarily deprived appointment by the concerned respondents and she has not been appointed as Prerak rather, respondent No. 5 has been appointed on the said post. The brief facts of the case are that, in the proceeding dated 23.09.2011, the respondent No. 5 was selected to be appointed as Prerak (Motivator). The petitioner made a complaint and on her complaint, an enquiry was instituted. The enquiry officer took note of the educational as well as other qualifications of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 and opined that the candidature of the petitioner was ignored and respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Prerak. It appears that thereafter, the respondent No. 5 was not offered appointment and therefore, respondent No. 5 made a representation before the District Superintendent of Education requesting him to pass an order for her appointment, as she was duly selected by the Gram Sabha in its proceeding held on 23.09.2011. It appears that a second enquiry was instituted and enquiry report dated 08.06.2012 was submitted, a reading of which would disclose that the enquiry officer examined the members of the Gram Sabha and recorded a finding that in the proceeding held on 23.09.2011, the respondent No. 5 was appointed.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent -State of Jharkhand as well as respondent No. 5. In the counter -affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, a plea has been taken that she has been duly appointed and the document i.e. Annexure -1, on which the petitioner has placed reliance, was not applicable when the selection of the respondent No. 5 was made. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated: 21. That in reply to the statement made in para 14 of this writ application it is submitted that the experience was not the only criteria for selecting "Prerak" rather by considering all the criteria such as educational qualification and knowledge of computer the selection was to be done in this respect it is also humbly submitted that respondent No. 5 had submitted her marks sheet of intermediate which goes to show that she had obtained 1st Div. marks in her intermediate examination as well as she had also given certificate regarding her computer education where as per the knowledge of Respondents, the petitioner had given only the marks sheet of Matric and even if her mark sheet of intermediate is also considered at this stage even then she had obtained the marks of 3rd Div as well as she had not given any certificate regarding her knowledge of computer, so far as experience certificates are concerned that were also not submitted along with application for the post of "Prerak" before the Aam Sabah by the petitioner rather after the selection of respondent No. 5 it appears that she procured such certificates therefore the Aam Sabah rightly selected respondent No. 5 according to merit as the respondent No. 5 was 1st Div. in intermediate and she had also knowledge of computer. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner admittedly is qualified alongwith respondent No. 5 and the petitioner has undertaken training in Adult Education, Literacy Programme, Community Development, Social Service and Vocational Skill and she had been working as Prerak previously also however, the Gram Sabha had ignored her candidature and respondent No. 5 has been appointed on the said post. He has placed further reliance on the document, which has been filed as Annexure -1 dated 11.07.2012, which details the other qualifications/experiences, a candidate possessing which can be given preference for the appointment on the post of Prerak.;