the department that there was requirement for training, remains unfounded. In such view of the matter, this Court finds, the stand taken by the contesting Opposite Parties remains wholly contrary to the condition at clause 3(f) in the resolution vide Annexure-4. It is, in this view of the matter, this Court finds, the ground of not selecting the Petitioner is not germane to the condition imposed in the resolution vide Annexure-4. As a consequence this Court finds, not selecting the Petitioner for the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher pursuant to the advertisement in question is illegal. Since the Petitioner was fulfilling all the required qualification for the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher in Government Schools in 2014-15 pursuant to the resolution vide Annexure-4, this Court directs, in the event the Petitioner fulfills other conditions, the competent authority to draw a fresh select list of Contractual Hindi Teacher in Government Schools pursuant to the advertisement in question forthwith, preferably within a period one month and in the event the name of the Petitioner finds place within the required candidate, the Petitioner shall be appointed against the said post. In the event there is possibility of disturbing any of the selected person, such person may be provided with opportunity. For the Petitioner going to get the benefit through this judgment and as the litigation process involving the Petitioner continued for over six years, this Court further directs, in the event the Petitioner gets appointment on re-drawl of fresh selection list, the Petitioner be treated to have been recruited in the post of Contractual Hindi Teacher in the year 201415 and so far as arrear is concerned, it shall be calculated notionally. However, the other
