IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of the petitioner must be justified based on the qualifications and rules prevailing at the time of consideration, as per legal precedents and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 19.12.2018, whereby the respondents, in utter violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 2125 of 2010, have rejected the representation of the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner having the qualification of B.A (English) and Post-Graduation, has appeared before the Gram Shiksha Samiti (Village Education Committee), Madhupur for selection to the post of Para Teacher in Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, Ratu Vihar (Madhupur). The committee after finalization of the selection process, recommended the name of six persons for appointment in Grade II category i.e. B.A with English, in which, the name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 3 despite the fact that he was the only candidate with a degree of Post Graduate. It has further been submitted that in spite of the fact, that the petitioner possessed the higher qualification, he was denied appointment and illegally selected one Prabhu Verma, as Para Teacher by the Village Education Committee. Challenging the appointment of said Prabhu Verma, the petitioner approached this Court in W .P. (S). No. 2125 of 2010 and this Court after hearing the parties, disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 14.08.2018, with a direction to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order with regard to appointment of petitioner to the post in question, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The respondent-authority in light of the judgment passed in W.P.(S). No. 2125 of 2010 has terminated the services of said Prabhu Verma and further rejected the representation of the petitioner also vide its order dated 19.12.2018.

Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argues that impugned order dated 19.12.2018 is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents have ignored the qualification which the petitioner was having and illegally and arbitrarily appointed Prabhu Verma in place of petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(S). No. 2125 of 2010 and this Court was pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order with regard to appointment of petitioner to the post in question. Thereafter, the respondent-authority in light of order passed by this Court, terminated the service of the said Prabhu Verma and now, there is one post of Para Teacher lying vacant.

5. Learned counsel attacking the impugned order submits that respondents have lost sight of the fact that cause of action arose in 2010 itself and as such, Rule prevailing at that time ought to have been considered while passing the impugned order. Further, it has been argued that petitioner has been deprived of the appointment and the valuable right which has accrued to the petitioner has been snatched. It was further contended that after shortlisting, three candidates for the appointment as Para Teacher was made, including the petitioner and qualification of the petitioner was much higher than the other two candidates. In view of circular dated 08.06.2005 and 24.04.2008, it is apparent that candidates procuring higher qualification will be given preference and as such, the case of petitioner needs consideration. Learned counsel further argues that since the candidature of Prabhu Verma has already been turned down and since there is vacant post, the case of petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment. It has also been argued that recommendation of the Village Education Committee cannot be accepted as a gospel truth and in view of earlier observation made by this Court, petitioner deserves to be appointed.

6. Per contra, counter-af