Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 4761 of 2016 Kumari Renu Singh W/o Sanjay Kumar Singh, R/o New Colony, Bhutgadiya, Dhanbad, Jharkhand …. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Women and Child Development, Ranchi.
3. The Director (Social Welfare Directorate), Department of Social Welfare Women and Child Development, Ranchi.
4. The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
6. The Deputy Director (Welfare), Hazaribagh …. … … Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK ----- For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Suraj Prakash, J.C. to S.C.(Mines) ` ------ 05/ 11.07.2017 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to accept her joining on the post of lady Supervisor for which, the petitioner has been found eligible in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 06.08.2011. Further prayer is to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order dated 21.05.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 1316 of 2013 and other analogues cases. Factual Matrix:- The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sevika in the year 1995 and presently working at Jharia Anganwari Centre, Dhanbad. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No. 2 vide Memo No. 224 dated 03.02.2014 directed respondent No. 4 and other officers for filling up 25% post of lady supervisor on promotion from Anganwari Sevika, in the light of Jharkhand Child Development Services Non-Gazetted Recruitment and Service Conditions Rules, 2006 and the entire programme has been communicated to the Respondent No. 4 for proceeding for appointment to the post of lady supervisor. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 vide letter No. 460 dated 10.03.2012 directed respondent No. 4 for determining the programme for appointment to the post of lady supervisor on the basis of promotion to the extent of 25% of the total post in the light of Jharkhand Child Development Services Non-Gazetted Recruitment and Service Conditions Rules, 2006 and it was informed that the appointment letter shall be distributed on 30.04.2012 and all programmes for the said examination has been notified by respondent No.
2. In the light of the said notification, an advertisement was issued in the daily Newspaper for appointment of the 25% post of lady Supervisor from Anganwari Sewika with the Commissionary of North Chhotanagpur Division and the said advertisement was published in Daily Newspaper dated 06.08.2011. The last date for submission of form was given to be upto 24.08.2011 and the written examination was fixed on 18.12.2011. The petitioner, being eligible person, submitted her application for appointment to the post of lady supervisor as the petitioner was eligible for the post according to her experience in the post of Anganwari Sewika. The written examination was conducted on 18.12.2011 and thereafter, merit list of 104 candidates, who were appeared in the examination was prepared on 23.01.2012 by the respondents. Although as per the directions given by the respondent No. 2, this entire process of appointment was to be completed and appointment letters were to be distributed by 30.04.2012 itself, but the respondent No. 4 has delayed in completing the process of recruitment as directed by respondent No.
2. It is the further case of the petitioner that the matter with respect to the first examination conducted on 18.12.2011 by respondent authorities for appointment to the post of lady supervisor and the second examination was conducted on 25.04.2012, was considered by the Appointment Committee on 16.05.2012 and taking into consideration that there were two questions whose model answers have been found incorrect by the said Committee, should be obtained with respect to such mistakes, which has been committed in the model answer sheets. In the light of the said decision dated 16.05.2012, a request was made by respondent No. 4 to the respondent No.3 for giving necessary direction so that the merit list can be rectified and said letter was communicated vide letter No. 154 dated 16.05.2012. Thereafter, a decision was taken by the respondents regarding deletion of the same and preparation of fresh merit list immediately and process of recruitment was to be completed. Subsequently, the respondents prepared a fresh merit list of 104 candidates after deleting two questions, whose model answers have found to be incorrect but the position in the merit list was not changed and the same merit list was prepared and it reflected the names of 104 candidates who were also in panel of earlier merit list. In case of the petitioner, no order has been passed regarding the appointment to the post of lady supervisor and as such, the petitioner was compelled to move before this Court for acceptance of her joining. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the name of the petitioner fines place in the first merit list as well as revised merit list but the respondents are not accepting the joining of the petitioner on the post of lady supervisor for the reasons best known to them. Learned counsel further submits that the other candidates, who preferred writ application in Writ Petition No. 1316 of 2013 and other analogous cases, have been considered for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor and they have joined the post also but the petitioner has not approached this Court and hence, she has been deprived from the said benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that her case is fully covered by Annex. 8 i.e. W.P(S) No. 1316 of 2013 and other analogous cases and she is also entitled for the same benefits, which was extended to other lady supervisors, whose name found merit list of 104 candidates. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has obtained less marks then the other candidates and as such, she was not appointed on the post of lady supervisor. However, learned counsel is not in a position state anything on the decision as stated in the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1316 of 2013 on 21.05.2015 and other analogous cases. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. If the case of the petitioner falls on similar footings to that of other candidates, who have already been appointed in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.S No. 1316 of 2013, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits for redressal of her grievances of similar issues for other candidates, who are not required to knock the door of the Court. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions that each and every candidates are not expected to knock the door of the Court, if the Court has passed the order extending benefits to similarly situated persons. There is no occasion that the petitioner should also not be extended the same benefit. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and if the petitioner is found to be entitled for the same benefit, the same may be extended within a further period of two weeks. Needless to say that if the petitioner is entitled for the same benefits, her appointment should be accepted within a period of one month thereafter. In view of the aforesaid observation, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J) punit/