Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Para Teacher and further to issue appropriate writ not to allow respondent no. 5 to function as Para Teacher.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to advertisement published in daily newspaper "Ranchi Express" dated 13.11.2006 inviting applications for the post of Para Teacher in different schools, the petitioner applied against vacanct position in Government Primary School, Amlatoli along with other candidates. Pursuant thereto, a general meeting was held on 16.11.2006, in which, one Farhat Parveen was selected on the post of Para Teaher, but, she did not join on the said post. It has been averred that in spite of the fact that the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 2, one male person was appointed brushing aside the criteria made in the advertisement that female candidate should be given preference. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner made representation to respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 herein, but, it did not evoke any response. It has further been averred that the petitioner even sought information under R.T.I Act, but it also did not give any fruitful result.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sole ground for denying the appointment of the petitioner, as mentioned in the counter affidavit is that she does not belong to the local residence and not from the same ward where the school is situated. In this regard, it has emphatically been submitted that in the impugned advertisement it is nowhere stated that discrimination can be made on the basis of ward and it is common that one village may comprise of more than one ward. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Clause 3 of the advertisement implicitly speaks that preference was to be given to female candidate. In the instant case, the female candidate-the petitioner, having higher qualification has not been given preference and appointment has been given to respondent no. 5 in utter violation of terms of advertisement. It has further been submitted that from the list of candidates, as per qualification, the petitioner was at second place, hence, as per the theory of legitimate expectation the petitioner had every reason to expect and believe herself to be selected after the person who was given offer of appointment refused to join.;