Point of Law : Similarly, for category number (c) also the Note-3 comes into operation only if a candidate possesses more than 50% marks in graduation, because otherwise a candidate falling in this category even with 45% marks in B.A. Hindi is eligible to apply for the post, provided he already possesses Teacher Eligibility Test as on the date when the interviews were to be conducted.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) That a writ of certioreri may kindly be issued quashing the appointment of respondents No. 5 and 6.

(ii) That a writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Language Teacher in District Mandi, H.P.”

2. The grievance, with which the present petition was filed by the petitioner, was that respondent/Department in terms of advertisement dated 24.12.2013 (Annexure P9), invited applications to fill up the posts of Language Teachers in various schools in District Mandi, H.P. and in terms thereof, the recruitment was to be made on batch-wise basis and counseling for this purpose was fixed for 06.01.2014, at 10.00 a.m. in the office of Deputy Director, Education, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. According to the petitioner, the advertisement was not in knowledge of the petitioner and she came to know about the same only on 10.02.2014 and thereafter, she made representations to respondent No. 3 to consider her also for interview for the post of Language Teacher in view of the fact that the results for interview dated 06.01.2014 had not yet been declared. As no action was taken on the representation of the petitioner and appointment letters were issued to the candidates selected in terms of the interview conducted on 06.01.2014, hence, the petition.

3. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that issuance of advertisement for filling up the posts of Language Teachers on batch-wise basis by way of interview/counseling was per se bad in law because it was incumbent upon the respondent/Department to have had sent the requisition to fill up the post on batch-wise basis to the Employment Exchange concerned and omission on the part of respondent/Department to do so has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner as in the absence of any requisition being placed to the Employment Exchange concerned, obviously the name of the petitioner was not forwarded for batch-wise recruitment resulting in her not being appointed against the post in issue. In this background, present petition has been filed seeking the relief already spelled by this Court hereinabove.

4. The petition is resisted by respondent/Department, inter-alia, on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the petitioner was not eligible in terms of the advertisement for appointment against the post in issue. It has been stated in the preliminary submissions that the petitioner though was possessing the requisite qualification for the purpose of Language Teacher as per the relevant Recruitment & Promotion Rules, but as she passed the Teacher Eligibility Test on 14.03.2014 and the interview in question was held on 06.01.2014, therefore, in the absence of the petitioner possessing said qualification on the date of interview she was not entitled for the relief claimed for. It is not denied in the response that after conduct of the interview, the petitioner did make a representation, but as per the respondents, this representation was not acceded to, as while advertising the post it was made clear that any candidate failing to attend the counseling on the fixed date shall not be entertained by the Department.

5. As far as the issue of requisition being sent to the Employment Exchange is concerned, all that was stated in the reply by the respondent/State was that wide publicity was given for conducting the counseling on 06.01.2014 by way of advertisement in leading newspapers and it was the petitioner who failed to apply for the same being ineligible on account of non-possessing the qualification of Teacher Eligibility Test.

6. This Court on previous dates after hearing the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General had issued a direction that let learned Commissioner-cum-Director of Employment, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh appear in the Court to explain the applicab