ORDER
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Commi-III.
2. the main plea as was taken by the petitioner is that the post was to be filled up from amongst eligible departmental candidates in pursuance of notice published in the Office on 31st October, 1998. The respondent No. 4, an outsider and being not a departmental candidate would not have been appointed to the post of Commi-III in pursuance of such notice.
3. The respondents though filed a counter affidavit, but the Court being not satisfied with the same also called for the original records and asked the concerned Officer having knowledge of selection to remain present to assist the Court.
4. From the counter affidavit and records, it appears that the post of Commi-III is a post of Cook. The respondent No. 4 was engaged on daily wage in the Hotel Ashok, Ranchi in February, 1991 and since then he is working.
5. The Management of the Hotel called for applications through two sources. An Inter-Departmental Notice was issued on 31st October, 1998 calling for applications from internal eligible candidates. Names were also called for from the Employment Exchange. Ranchi, vide letter No. HR/PER/98 dated 10th September, 1998. The Employment Exchange, Ranchi vide letter No. US-6/98-2437 dated 15th September, 1998 recommended the names of two persons, namely, the 4th respondent. Jeetu Singh and one Shri Chitu Acharya. Both respondent No. 4 and Chitu Acharya were asked to appear for interview and trade test on 15th January, 1999. The said respondent No. 4 appeared as an outsider in the said test on 15th January, 1999 and also filled up the format as were asked to be filled up by the candidates. The internal candidates, including the petitioner also appeared. In fact, the selection test was not conducted on 15th January, 1999 but on 16th January, 1999.
6. From the facts aforesaid, it will be evident that the appointment of respondent No. 4 has been made after following the procedure. The petitioner was also given opportunity, but could not compete.
7. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.