Aparesh Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has applied for appointment against one post of teacher in the subject of Philosophy under the Advertisement no. 1/2012 issued by RespondentNetarhat Vidyalaya Samiti, Netarhat, Annexure2. He faced interview on 5th February, 2013 as per interview letter dated 4th January, 2013 and 15th January, 2013 (Annexure3) and the results were published on 14th March, 2013, where his name was at serial no. 1 in the meritlist of the candidates, who had applied for the subject of Philosophy vide Annexure4 series. However, he was not appointed. It is also evident that no appointment on the single post of Philosophy teacher advertised was made by the respondent.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that after having allowed him to participate in the written test and interview, the respondent should not have foreclosed any appointment to the said post as it would be arbitrary. It is further contended that the post advertised could not have been allocated to any other subject during the selection process and further the appointment made thereafter in other subjects from the general category have failed to follow the rules of reservation. It is also pointed out that in the other subjects for which appointments have been made, the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner have been appointed. Therefore, the respondent should be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Philosophy teacher which has not yet been abolished as would appear from an information furnished under R.T.I vide letter dated 2nd December, 2013 as also the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting held on 17th August, 2013 being part of the same Annexure, Para 7 thereof. Therefore, the petitioner has been compelled to move this Court with the aforesaid prayer for directing the respondent to appoint him on the post of Philosophy teacher in the school in question.;