D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the letter dated 11.3.2008 (Annexure -7) passed by the Joint Director, Panchayati Raj (respondent No. 3) by reasons, whereby the recommendation for age relaxation in respect of the petitioner for the purposes of his appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak, has been rejected. A further prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant appropriate relaxation in the age to the petitioner who is presently working as Dalpati continuously from 1990 for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed and has been working as Dalpati continuously from 1990 and has offered his candidature for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak. The District Selection Committee had considered the candidature of several Dalpatis including the present petitioner and one Badri Prasad who was senior in rank to the petitioner, was recommended for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sewak in the District of Latehar. The recommendation which was forwarded, was accepted in favour of first candidate namely Badri Prasad by way of grant of relaxation of his age. Consequently, the petitioner could not be considered at that stage. However, subsequently, when the post fell vacant, similar exercise was again initiated by the Selection Committee and this time also, the Selection Committee had recommended the petitioner's case favourably for consideration of granting relaxation of age to him as was done in the case of earlier candidate namely, Badri Prasad. Shri A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while referring to the entire note sheet of the file pertaining to the petitioner which was moved in the concerned department of the Government Secretariat, submits that throughout the notings contained in the note sheet, it would transpire that at every stage, the authority concerned had recommended the petitioner's case for favour of consideration of his age relaxation and the matter was finally placed before the Secretary of the concerned Department. Yet, by the impugned order, the petitioner has been informed that his candidature has not been considered by the Joint Director and, the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar has been informed that the petitioner's case for relaxation of his age has been rejected. Learned Counsel explains that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of grant of relaxation of age and no reason has been assigned as to why relaxation of age has been refused to the petitioner. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Nizamuddin Khan and Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand W.P.(S) No. 1433 of 2002 and earlier judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. CWJC No. 2522 of 1999 (R), learned Counsel submits that it is settled principle of law that in exercise of discretion, the respondents cannot be allowed to make any discrimination whatsoever and should give equal treatment to the deserving persons. It is lastly submitted that as per the information obtained through the process of Right to Information Act, vacancy in the post of Panchayat Sewak in the District of Latehar does exist.
(3.) JC to G.A. is present. Though no counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, but learned Counsel submits that he would require time to seek instruction as on what ground has the petitioner's case been rejected.;