Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No.2485 of 2016 1. Sarita Kumari, wife of Balram Ram, resident of Mohalla Baralota, P.O. G.L.A. College, P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 2. Sandesh Kumar, son of Suryadeo Ram, resident of Village Murmusi, P.O. & P.S. Lesliganj, District District Palamau, Jharkhand 3. Anand Kumar, son of Balram Ram, resident of Mohalla Baralota, Panki Road, Shital Nagar, P.O. G.L.A. College, P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 4. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Son of Lakshmi Saw, resident of Mohalla Sildiliya, P.O. Sildiliya, P.S. Tarhasi, District Palamau, Jharkhand 5. Bhima Nand Mehta, son of Rakesh Mahto, resident of Village Nimiya, P.O. Sudna, P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 6. Pawan Kumar, son of Kuldip Rana, resident of Village Sutha, P.O. Pandeypur, P.S. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand 7. Santosh Kumar Mahto, son of Nand Kishore Mehta, resident of Village Meral, P.O. Sikkikala, P.S. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand 8. Raj Kumar Prasad, son of Gupteshwar Sahu, resident of Village Kishunpur, P.O. Kishunpur, P.S. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand 9. Surendra Kumar, son of Balram Ram, resident of Village Baralota, P.O. G.L.A. College, P.S. Daltonganj (Medini Nagar), District Palamau, Jharkhand 10. Satendra Kumar, son of Ishwari Ram, resident of Village Nimiya, P.O. Sudna, P.S. Medini Nagar (Daltonganj), District Palamau, Jharkhand 11. Bachan Manjhi, son of Late Kailash Manjhi, resident of village Badkinavi, P.O. Polpol, P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... ..... Respondents With W.P.(S) No.2021 of 2016 1. Kundal Prasad Gupta, son of Sri Shiv Saw, resident of Village Palhe Kalan, P.O. Palhe Kalan, P.S. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand 2. Ramyad Oraon, son of Sri Bisu Oraon, resident of Mahugaain, P.O. Aschar, P.S. Panki, District Palamau, Jharkhand 3. Mohammad Khalik, son of Sri Abdul Ajij, resident of Village 2 Kerki, P.O. Panki, P.S. Panki, District Palamau, Jharkhand 4. Rajesh Kumar, son of Sri Chandradeo Paswan, resident of Village Belaudar, P.O. Purhath Kataya, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand 5. Ram Pravesh Ram, son of Sri Janardan Ram, resident of Mohalla Azad Nagar, Sudna West, P.O. Sudna, P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 6. Naimuddin Ansari, son of Sri Rahmatulah Ansari, resident of Village Loiga, P.S. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand 7. Mohammad Ismatullah Roy, son of Mohammad Sahabuddin Roy, resident of Village Sutha, P.O. Pandeypura, P.S. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand 8. Sanjay Kumar, son of Ram Raj Manjhi, resident of Village Kajri, P.O. Naudiha, P.S. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand 9. Chandrika Oraon, son of Late Bela Oraon, resident of Village Ahigurha, P.O. Panki, P.S. Panki, District Palamau, Jharkhand 10 Manesh Oraon, son of Sri Ram Lagan Oraon, resident of Village Ahigurha, P.O. Panki, P.S. Panki, District Palamau, Jharkhand 11. Janardan Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Shivcharan Yadav, resident of Village Tetariya, P.O. Kurhatkateya, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand 12. Praduman Tiwary, son of Sri Sachidanand Tiwari, resident of Village Jamundih, P.O. Phulang, P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand 13. Chandan Kumar Ranjan, son of Sri Dukhi Ram, resident of Village Karihar, P.O. Gahar Pathra, P.S. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... ..... Respondents With W.P.(S) No.7471 of 2016 1. Radha Mohan Singh Son of Shyam Narayan Singh, Resident of Village Kajri, P.O. Nauiha, P.O. Patan, District Palamau, Jharkhand 2. Samsan Oraon Son of Premchand Oraon, Resident of Village Ahirgurha, P.O. Panki, P.S. Panki, District Palamau, Jharkhand 3. Pankaj Prasad Gupta Son of Gopal Saw, Resident of Mohalla Patel Nagar, P.O. Sudna, P.S. Medni Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 4. Lok Nath Oraon Son of Late Deotheni Oraon Resident of Village 3 Chiyanki, P.S. Medini Nagar, Sadar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 5. Sanigta Devi Wife of Loknath Oraon, Resident of Village Chiyanki, P.O. Chiyanki, P.S. Medni Nagar, Sadar District Palamau, Jharkhand 6. Mandip Kumar Bhaskar Son of Kailash Oraon, Resident of Village Kahua Toli, P.S. Panki, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand .... ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kishore Kr. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kr. Mahto, Adv. Mr. Shray Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Amit Kumar, JC to GPII [In W.P.(S) No.2021 of 2016] Mrs. Richa Sanchita, SCV [In W.P.(S) No.7471 of 2016] Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, JC to AAG [In W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016] 09/02.05.2017 I.A. No.1717 of 2017 [In W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016] I.A. No.1718 of 2017 [In W.P.(S) No.2021 of 2016] I.A. No.1719 of 2017 [In W.P.(S) No.7471 of 2016] These interlocutory applications have been filed for quashing of the public/general notice dated 19.02.2017 published in the daily newspaper'Danik Jagran'. There being no serious objection by the learned State counsels to these applications I.A. No.1717 of 2017 [In W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016], I.A. No.1718 of 2017 [In W.P.(S) No.2021 of 4 2016] and I.A. No.1719 of 2017 [In W.P.(S) No.7471 of 2016] are allowed. Consequently, challenge in the writ petitions to press release published on 19.02.2017 is incorporated. W.P.(S) Nos. 2485, 2021 & 7471 of 2016 With a common grievance, petitioners, 30 in numbers, have preferred these writ petitions. It is admitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions is common. Stand of the respondentState is reflected in the affidavits filed in W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral states that the stand of the State in other two writ petitions cannot be different from the stand taken in W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016. With the consent of the counsels appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order, at this stage itself. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondentState without disclosing a valid reason for discriminating the petitioners and other similarly situated applicants with the candidates who were applicants in the district of Koderma, cannot stop the process of selection pursuant to Advertisement no.01/2010.
4. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral, however, submits that the difference between this set of applicants and the others who may have been appointed, is that, in the instant case the State has taken a conscious decision to cancel Advertisement for appointment. 5. In W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016 there are 11 petitioners, in W.P.(S) No.2021 of 2016 number of petitioners is 13 and in W.P.(S) No.7471 of 2016, 6 petitioners have joined together. They claim that they possessed the requisite educational qualification which was notified in Advertisement no.01/2010. They are aspirants for appointment on ClassIV posts from the district of Palamau. They were issued admit cards for appearing in the examination which was scheduled to be held on 07.08.2011. Stand taken by the respondents 5 is that on account of a letter issued from the Finance Department dated 02.09.2011, further process pursuant to Advertisement no.01/2010 was stopped. In the counteraffidavit, the respondents have also pleaded that on account of I.T.I. examination which was to be held on 07.08.2011 and Primary Teachers' Training examination which was to commence from 03.08.2011, it was not feasible to conduct examination under Advertisement No.01/2010 for appointment on ClassIV posts on the date scheduled, that is, on 07.08.2011. 6. By notification of Finance Department, Matriculation (10th) has been made an essential qualification for appointment on a classIV post. The respondents sought an opinion from the Law Department. The opinion of the Law Department was said to be circulated to different offices. The petitioners have taken a stand that while process for appointment on ClassIV posts in the district of Koderma continued, further process in the instant case was abruptly discontinued. Contention raised by the petitioners is that the process for appointment, which had commenced prior to change in the eligibility conditions vide letter dated 02.09.2011 of the Finance Department, must continue and the changed eligibility qualification can be insisted upon only in the advertisements issued after 02.09.2011. 7. There cannot be a doubt that it is the absolute discretion of the employer to make or not to make appointments, even after an advertisement has been issued for inviting applications for appointment and further steps were taken in the matter. It is also beyond pale of any doubt that appointment shall be made, to a post, of persons, possessing requisite qualifications. Stand taken by the petitioners that selection for ClassIV employees continued in the district of Koderma on the basis of previous qualifications has not been denied by the respondentState. However, the facts pleaded by the petitioners are not supported by documents and it is not clear whether appointments were actually made and approved by the 6 Government. The writ petitioners, however, would be entitled for a similar treatment which has been accorded to the other applicants in the district of Koderma. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that the selection process in the district of Koderma whether has concluded or not, is not on record. 8. In the circumstances, if appointments in the district of Koderma on ClassIV posts have been made on the basis of previous qualifications in the light of opinion of Law Department, the press release published on 19.02.2017 shall not operate against the petitioners and the respondentDeputy Commissioner shall take further steps for conduct of examination of those candidates who were issued admit cards. This direction is subject to verification of facts besides, the condition that advertisement in the district of Koderma for appointment on ClassIV post was issued in terms of previous notification for fixing the educational qualification for ClassIV employees, that is, ClassVIII pass. 9. The writ petitions stand disposed of, in the above terms. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Pankaj/R.Sinha