AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J
Learned counsel for the parties are present.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had participated in the selection process. As per the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the appointment of 4th Grade employee in Palamau district has been made as per the direction issued by this court in W.P. (S) No. 6709 of 2017 on the basis of procedure adopted in Koderma District for appointment of Grade IV employee.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to page 7 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the marks obtained in written examination was to be calculated on the ratio 3:1 i.e. 3 marks obtained 3 was to be treated as 01 mark and besides this the persons who were resident of Palamau district, were given 10 marks being local residential.
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to explain as to the provision on the basis of which marks calculated has been taken to be 1 mark upon obtaining 3 marks in the written examination and under what provision, local resident has been allocated 10 marks. By referring to the advertisement annexed with the writ petition, the learned counsel has simply stated that as per the advertisement, local residents were supposed to be given preference.
The counsel for the respondents is directed to seek instructions and file supplementary counter affidavit to bring on record the decisions/notifications/circulars on the basis of which marking has been done as mentioned in para 8 of the counter affidavit.
The supplementary counter affidavit should be filed by 16.11.2022.
Post this case under the same heading on 21.11.2022.