CWP-T- No.2535 of 2008. 16.12.2009. Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate, vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. R.S. Dogra, Addl. Advocate General, for the respondents. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner has obtained Ayurvedacharya degree from the Nikhil Bharatvarshiya Ayurved Vidyapitham Delhi. He got his name enrolled with the Employment Exchange, Una on 3.2.1994. The posts of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari are filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% on batchwise basis. The petitioner belongs to 1982 session. The name of the petitioner was ignored when 50 posts were filled up in the month of January, 1999 and again in the month of March, 1999 when 49 Doctors were appointed. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that his client was eligible and qualified to be considered for the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari on batchwise basis. He then contended that respondent No.1 has filed contradictory reply. He lastly contended that the name of his client was sponsored by respondent No.3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not appeared in the interview despite two letters dated 22.12.1998 and 31.5.1999. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. Initially, the stand of respondent No.1 was that the name of the petitioner was not sponsored against batchwise recruitment by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has filed separate reply. It has been categorically stated in the reply that the name of the petitioner was duly sponsored as per requisition sent by the Director, Ayurveda vide Annexures R-1 and R-2. It was also admitted that the name of the petitioner was registered with the Employment Exchange, Una. Confronted with this, respondent No.1 has changed his stand by filing supplementary reply. The changed stand of respondent No.1 is that the petitioner was called for interview vide letters dated 22.12.1998 and 31.5.1999, but the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner has refuted the averments contained in the supplementary affidavit. The plea of respondent No.1 that the petitioner did not appear in the interview despite letters dated 22.12.1998 and 31.5.1999 cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. Respondent No.1 has earlier stated that the name of the petitioner was not considered for the simple reason that his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is only when respondent No.3 has filed the reply taking a specific stand that his name was sponsored, respondent No.1 has changed its stand. It is not expected from the State Government to file contradictory replies. There has to be consistency in the stand adopted by it. There is no reason why the petitioner, who has got his name registered with the Employment Exchange will not appear in the interview. Respondent No.1 has also not placed on record the two letters dated 22.12.1998 and 31.5.1999 to substantiate its stand. It is doubtful whether these letters were ever issued to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 has not even produced before the Court the diary and dispatch register to substantiate its claim that the letters in fact were sent to the petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not been dealt with in just and fair manner. He has been deprived the right to be considered and appointed to the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari on the basis of seniority/batch. Moreover, respondent No.1 was only required to see the testimonials of the candidates at the time of making appointment on batchwise basis. The appointment was made on the basis of seniority/batch. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari from the date the persons from the junior batch were considered, with all the consequential benefits. The needful will be done within a period of four weeks from today. It is clarified by way of abundant precaution that since respondent No.1 is at fault of not considering the candidature of the petitioner, the criteria of maximum age shall not apply in the case of the petitioner. 16th December, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (tr)