PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the advertisement no. 18 dated 07.07.2009 published by the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board for the post of Untrained Instructor of Industrial Training. Further, prayer has been made for stay of the appointment of untrained Instructor.
(2.) The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner having passed the Industrial Training Institute Examination from Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1997, was working as Mechanic in Motor Vehicle Trade for about 5 years in K.N. Construction Private Limited, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner has completed a course of one year Advance Training Institute from ATI, Hyderabad in the year 2009 and obtained the said certificate. In pursuance to advertisement no. 18 dated 07.07.2009 for the post of Industrial Training Institute Instructor in several trades, the petitioner submitted his application and participated in the examination on 18.07.2010. In the said examination, the petitioner having secured 44 marks, his position in the Combined Merit List was 50 and the minimum qualification marks of General Category candidate is 40. Thereafter, counselling for the said post of the selected candidate continued. Being aggrieved by the non-selection on the aforesaid post, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondents have selected the candidates having less qualification compared to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the selection of the candidate on the post in question is in violation of the guidelines of the Central Government which is not only illegal but also amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. During course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to I.A. No. 2196 of 2011 more particularly paragraph 6 where the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been reiterated.;