Pramath Patnaik,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Memo No.847 dated 16.07.2012 (Annexure-7) whereby the Block Education Extension Officer (Respondent No.6) has been directed not to take work from the petitioner as Resource Teacher and further prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding upon the respondent authority to take work from the petitioner as Resource Teacher after providing all the facilities and benefits.
(2.) The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that, in pursuance to an advertisement published in daily news paper "Hindustan" for the purpose of appointment of Resource Teacher, the petitioner applied for the post of Resource Teacher from Godda District and appeared in the written examination and successfully qualified in the said written examination. A select list was prepared wherein the name of the petitioner finds at Serial No.37 as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ application and he has been selected for the post of Resource Teacher and thereafter, he was called in the counselling by letter No.631 dated 31.05.2012 vide Annexure-4 to the writ application. In pursuance to selection, the petitioner joined on 28.06.2012 as Resource Teacher in the office of the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Godda. After joining in the aforesaid post on 28.06.2012, a letter bearing Memo No.794 dated 02.07.2012 was issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Godda, whereby the petitioner was posted at Basantrai Block within the district of Godda where he joined on 03.07.2012 and continued to work on the said post as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application. But to the utter surprise and consternation, a letter bearing Memo No.847 dated 16.07.2012 issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Godda served upon him prohibiting to discharge work owing to over age, as per Annexure-7 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order under Annexure-7, the petitioner approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Heard Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Rakhi Rani, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and M/s S. Arun & Deepak Kr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and perused the records minutely.;