- (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following relief(s): '' (a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the merit list dated 1.11.2008 prepared by" respondent No. 2 against the terms and conditipns' published in advertisement for the post of Block Programme Officer vide Advertisement letter No. 369/ SSA Dhanbad dated 12.5.2007. (b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to fill up the advertised post in accordance with the terms and conditions given in the advertisement letter No. 369 SSA Dhanbad dated 12.5.07 and appoint the petitioner being a genuine candidate who is fulfilling all the criteria as given in the Advertisement Letter. (c) For issuance of any other writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the respondents authority advertised several posts including the post of Block Programme Officer on contract on 12th May, 2007. The petitioner, who was fulfilling all the criteria and conditions, given in the Advertisement, applied for the post of Block Programme Officer under the category of O.B.C.. The petitioner was issued the Admit -card for appearing in the written examination, which was held on 22.6.2008. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared on 1.11.2008 on the basis of the result of the written examination. The petitioner has further alleged that the candidates for the Block Programme Officer were objecting the procedure for the appointment of Block Programme Officer, as being adopted by respondent No. 2. It has also been averred in the petition that the candidates have raised objections for taking examination in English. Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the petitioner has appeared in examination and he has not objected during the course of examination and when he was not selected, he has filed this writ application challenging the said appointment. He is estopped from challenging the examination process.
(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;