KAILASH PRASAD DEO,J. - (1.) Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and the State. By the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.5931 of 2008 learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere in the order dated 10.10.2008 whereby the representation of the writ-petitioner was rejected.
(2.) Writ-petitioner had approached the Court for the second time in connection with a claim for appointment to Class-IV posts under advertisement dated 21.12.2005 which prescribed minimum educational qualification of Class-VIII and maximum qualification upto Matriculation. Petitioner admittedly had the qualification of Bachelor in Science. A plea was taken by the writ-petitioner that by the subsequent Circular dated 19.07.2007 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the criteria of maximum qualification was removed. Additionally it was urged that under the same advertisement, four persons were appointed who had qualification more than Matriculation. Learned Single Judge dealt with the issue in the following words:- 6. Before adverting to the merit of the case, it would be apposite to quote the relevant portion of advertisement describing "educational qualification". "2.. 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& v"Ve oxZ ds mij ,oa izosf'kdk ;k muls uhps gksxhA 7. From plain reading of clause (2) of the above advertisement, it is amply clear that petitioner having qualification of B.Sc. was never eligible to be considered for the post in question. From the averments available on record, it further appears that at no point of time before applying or even after applying the petitioner has challenged that clause describing "educational qualification"; hence, it remains in tact against the petitioner. So far derivation of benefit of letter dated 19.07.2007 issued by Personal, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department, Government of Jhakhand, is concerned, admittedly the same was issued on later date and till then selection process was over. So far question of parity is concerned, the respondent in impugned order dated 10.10.2008 has elaborately dealt with and the same has been reiterated in counter- affidavit filed by the respondents-State, hence, on the count of parity no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the respondents have discriminated amongst candidates on grounds of the criteria of educational qualification though the appellant was otherwise eligible in all respects. Even the criteria of maximum qualification has been subsequently removed by the DOPT, Government of Jharkhand. The bordering District of West Singhbhum had initiated a recruitment exercise for Class-IV posts as per advertisement dated 29.04.2007 (Annexure-4) where the criteria of maximum educational qualification was done away.;