CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10478 OF 2003 ***** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ***** 1. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry of Human Resources, Department of Education, New Delhi, through its Deputy Director. 2. Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Patna Region, Boring Road, Patna. .... Petitioners. Versus 1. Harendra Kumar Singh, son of Sri Rabindra Narain Singh, resident of village Tumaul, P.S. Ghanshyampur, District Darbhanga. 2. Mr. Th. Udhob Singh, Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kadirabad, Darbhanga. 3. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, son of not known, Lower Division Clerk in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, kadirabad, Darbhanga. 4. Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resources Development Deptt., Department of Education, New Delhi. 5. Central Administrative Tribunal, through its Registrar, Patna. ..... Respondents. ***** For the Petitioner : Mr. Jawahar Prasad Karn, Advocate For the Respondents : Pushkar Narain Shahi, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ***** S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.461 of 1999 (Harendra Kumar Singh Vs. the Union of India and others), whereby the original application preferred by respondent no.1 herein has been allowed, and the 2 authorities have been directed to appoint the applicant (respondent no.1 herein) as Lower Division Clerk. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. In order to appoint a lower division clerk in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kadirabad, Darbhanga, the authorities had sent requisition dated 26.7.1996 (Annexure-R/2), to the local Employment Exchange. Twenty names were received who were interviewed on 19.12.1996, but the further process was stayed by the District Magistrate. On 11.12.1997, the District Magistrate directed the Principal of the School to proceed further in the matter. By his communication dated 6.4.1998, the Principal sought guidelines from petitioner no.2 herein. By his communication dated 7.4.1998, petitioner no.2 directed the Principal to cancel the requisition and call for fresh names from the Employment Exchange. Consequently the Principal sent fresh requisition dated 9.4.1998. In response to the same, the Employment Exchange recommended twenty names which included respondent no.1 herein. Typing test and viva-voce test were held on 15.5.1998, the panel was prepared on 18.5.1998, and was forwarded on the same date to petitioner no.2. The Principal had recommended the name of respondent no.1 for appointment. By his communication dated 14.10.1998, petitioner no.2 had called for the bio-data of respondent no.1. The Principal complied with the 3 order and forwarded the bio-data on 23.10.1998. By his communication dated 18.3.1999 (annexure-8), petitioner no.2 refused to accord approval of appointment of respondent no.1, for the reason that he did not measure up to the prescribed qualification. The order further stated that one Pradeep Kumar, a lower division clerk working elsewhere, was posted in the school in question. The Principal issued the consequent office order dated 22.3.1999 (Annexure-9), dispensing with the services of respondent no.1, leading to the original application which has been allowed by the impugned order, and the authorities have been directed to consider his case afresh after relaxation of the age-bar. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the validity of the order of the Tribunal on diverse grounds. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has supported the order of the Tribunal and also prays for compassion. He submits that respondent no.1 had worked for quite some time. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.L. Gupta and another Vs. M,C.D., reported in (1998)10 SCC 223. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. A copy of the notification dated 22.6.1995 (Annnexure-10), issued under rule 24 of the Rules of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Ministry 4 of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), New Delhi, in force with effect from 22.6.1995, prescribed the minimum educational qualifications for the post of lower division clerk, also described as Group ‘C’ Ministerial. The relevant portion of Clause 7 of the same is reproduced hereinbelow: 7. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits: ESSENTIAL Senior Secondary (Class XII) certificate or equivalent from a recognised Board/ University with 50% marks and possessing minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English typewriting or 25 words per minute in Hindi/Regional Language typewriting. OR Senior Secondary Certificate from CBSE/State Board with secretarial practices and office management as vocational subjects. It is thus evident that the candidate had to score a minimum of 50% marks at the Senior Secondary (Class XII) certificate, or equivalent from a recognised Board/University. The Admitted position is that respondent no.1 falls short of this mandatory requirement of law. 6. It further appears to us from the beginning to end that the situation has been tailor-made to suit respondent no.1. He had initially appointed on purely temporary and ad hoc basis, without following the prescribed procedure. Thereafter names were invited 5 from the Employment Exchange, which is not a reliable basis to make appointments. Law is well-settled that public employment in this country is a national wealth and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same, which is possible only if the vacancy is widely advertised so that every citizen has the opportunity to apply for consideration. We do not find any justification at all from the records as to why the post was not advertised, and why it was restricted to the names called for from the Employment Exchange. We, therefore, entirely agree with the order dated 18.3.1999 (Annexure-8), whereby petitioner no.2 has refused to accord approval of the selection made by the Principal of the school. 7. In the result, we allow this writ petition, the order dated 8.4.2003 (Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.461 of 1999, is hereby set aside, and that of petitioner no.2, dated 18.3.1999 (Annexure-8), is restored. (S K Katriar, J.) Kishore K. Mandal, J. I agree. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 6th day of April, 2010. S.K.Pathak/(N.A.F.R.)