Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 15.09.2009 whereby respondent no. 3 cancelled the proposal submitted by respondent no. 4 regarding approval of appointment of the petitioner and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to confirm the appointment of the petitioner.
(2.) Heard Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, A.C to learned S.C. (L & C) for the respondents.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the sanctioned and vacant post of Assistant Teacher permission was sought for by the Management of the School from the Education Department vide letter dated 06.02.2007 for issuance of advertisement and filling up the post of Assistant Teacher in the school; in response thereof permission was granted by the Education Department vide letter dated 20.09.2007. Accordingly, advertisement was published and after due intimation to Regional Education Officer interview was held on 24.01.2008 and 13.05.2008 but even after intimation no officer from the Education Department turned up, the interview was cancelled vide letter dated 12.05.2008 and a fresh appointment process was initiated and again request was made to Regional Education Officer to remain present on the date fixed for interview i.e. on 14.05.2008 but on that day also no representative of the Department came to attend the interview for the one pretext and the other. Left with no option, the management of the school proceeded with the appointment process and after following due process the petitioner was appointed as Matric Trained Teacher vide letter of appointment dated 25.09.2008 and since then he has been continuing on that post. Thereafter, respondent no. 4-the Secretary of the school sent a letter to the Department for approval of appointment of the petitioner but the respondent no. 3-D.S.E., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur denied to give approval of appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the school management committee did not comply with the departmental letter dated 04.03.1993, which says in School Management committee the controlling authority i.e. Regional Education Officer/Block Education Extension Officer may be included as representative of the department. It has been submitted that from plain reading of letter dated 04.03.1993 it is amply clear that presence of Regional Education Officer/Block Education Extension Officer is obligatory in nature and is not of mandatory nature. Even otherwise, the management of the school tried best to secure his presence but it is the representative of the department who for some reason or the other evaded their presence. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to letter dated 17.12.2007 which says that when in spite of intimation the departmental representative did not appear in the interview in the 2nd time, the Managing Committee of the minority school may proceed with the interview for selection of teacher and make appointment and such appointment shall not be considered to be irregular due to absence of departmental representative. On the ground of parity, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure 11 to the supplementary affidavit dated 26.11.2015 submitted that in the case of one Ms. Poonam Singh, where departmental representative did not appear and a different approach has been taken by the respondent and her appointment has been approved but the petitioner has been discriminated by denying the approval of appointment by respondents-authorities.;