Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mohd. Mansoor, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and its authority on the other hand submitted that on account of the frequent extension of dates for submission of forms, the date of eligibility also got automatically extended, consequently, a situation arose where there was no uniformity in the said date. Considering the facts which appeared before the State Government it was clearly a case resulting in discrimination to the candidates who could not apply earlier. The petitioners herein had no locus standi to maintain this writ petition in view of the law laid down in Shankarsan Dass (supra) that a selected candidate does not have any right of appointment. None of their rights much less fundamental rights have been violated. They are still participants in the selection, mere enlargement of the zone of consideration can not be a ground for interference in the matter. The impugned decision is a policy decision taken by the Government on the basis of material available and the opinion formed is not such which could be said to be perverse or irrational, therefore, there is no scope for interference with such a bonafide decision which is in the interest of selection process being completed and sustained. The Rules of 2008 relied upon by the petitioner have no application at this stage of selection and the contentions based thereon are misconceived.
It is not out of place to reiterate that in one of the matters when a similarly situated person approached this Court, the Court vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2015 declined to interfere in the matter. This is only one of the reasons for declining to interfere in the present case coupled with the reasons already mentioned herein above.
It is in the interest of all that the selection process be completed at the earliest and selected teachers be appointed for imparting teaching to students so as to realize the goal fixed by the Constitution vide Article 21-A read with Chapter IV thereof.