2 The petitioner challenges the impugned communication dated 24.02.2022 issued by respondent No.1 rejecting the approval to the appointment of the petitioner. It is further prayed that respondent No.1 should be directed to issue approval in favour of the petitioner. 3 The factual matrix leading to the petition are that the petitioner after due procedure came to be appointed as Lab Technician by respondent No.2. The petitioner is qualified in D. Pharmacy. Respondent No.1 had accorded sanction to fill up the post to respondent No.2 by letter dated 10.01.2019. Thereupon respondent No.2 had issued advertise on 10.08.2019. The advertisement contained that for the post of Lab Technician the experience of two years was required. The corrigendum was then issued on 01.09.2019 stating that experience of three years is necessary. Thereafter, by letter dated 04.12.2019 respondent No.1 had constituted selection committee and nominated a nominee on its behalf on the said committee. The interviews were conducted and the name of the petitioner was recommended for the post of Lab Technician by report dated 07.12.2019.
↧