Full Judgment
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 272 of 2014 1. Dinesh Nand, son of late Kunj Bihari Nand, resident of Village - Sisi Karam Toli, P.O. - Srinagar, P.S. - Dumri (New A.E. Jare), District - Gumla, Jharkhand 2. Santosh Kumar Mishra, son of Sri Ramadhar Mishra, resident of Village - Ghaghra, P.O. & P.S.- Ghaghra, District - Gumla, Jharkhand. … … … … Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Special Secretary-cum-Nodal Officer, Department of Agriculture & Sugarcane Development, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar 5. M/s Merit Track Service Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh … ... ... ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ----- For the Appellants: M/s. Yogesh Modi, Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P.-V ------ 07/Dated:
9. h of February, 2015 Per D.N. Patel, J1 This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.2563 of 2012 dated 15th May, 2014 whereby the writ petition preferred by these appellants has been dismissed. Therefore, the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
2) Counsel for the appellants submitted that these appellants (original petitioners) have never applied for District Gumla for the post of Jansevak (Village Level Worker). The home district of the appellants is Gumla. They have filed up their forms for the post of Jansevak for Latehar and Lohardaga. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that looking to the conditions of the Advertisement being clause no.5, to be read with clause no.8 to be read with clause no.9, nowhere it has been stated in the form to be filled up by the 2 candidates, that the applicants have also to point out that they are applying for which district. In fact, the pay orders or the amount for which the bank drafts are given was of district Lohardaga and Latehar. Thus, it cannot be said that these appellants had applied for Jansevak for the district Gumla. In fact, for district Gumla, there is not a single post of General Category candidate, whereas, at Latehar and Lohardaga, there are posts of Jansevak for general category candidates. The appellants have secured more marks than the candidates who have been appointed for the post of Jansevak in general category. Hence, these appellants should be appointed as Jansevak for Latehar and Lohardaga. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.2563 of 2012 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
3) Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that these appellants, have filled up the form and it is stated therein that they belong to district Gumla. They were given admit card also, for the district Gumla. They had appeared in the examination at District Gumla and, therefore, looking to Clause 5 to be read with clause 8 to be read with clause 9 of the advertisement, which is annexed as Annexure 1 of the Memo of Appeal, it appears that these appellants have applied for only one district at Gumla for the post of Jansevak and not for any other district and, as there is no vacancy for general category candidates for the post of Jansevak at Gumla, these appellants have not been appointed on the same post. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the respondents-State has also submitted that once the candidate is accepting the terms of the advertisement, he cannot now submit that the terms of the advertisement are not binding. Counsel for the respondents-State has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs Anil Kumar Mehta reported in 2014(4) JCR429 Looking to clause 5 to be read with clause 8 to be read with clause 9 and also looking to the fact that these appellants belong to the district Gumla, they were also given admit card for Gumla, they had appeared in the examination at Gumla and, therefore, they were the candidates who have applied for the district Gumla for the post of 3 Jansevak. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.
4) Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) The advertisement was given by the respondents-State on 21st October, 2011 for the post of Jansevak (Village Level Worker) for different 24 districts in the State of Jharkhand. The said advertisement is at Annexure 1 to the Memo of Appeal. (ii) Looking to the conditions attached with the advertisement, especially, clause 5 to be read with clause 8 to be read with clause 9, it appears that the candidate has to apply for only one district for the post in question. Moreover, he has to appear in the examination in a district for which his candidature has been accepted. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that these appellants had mentioned in their application that they belong to the district Gumla. It further appears from the facts of the case that these appellants were given admit card for district Gumla, as they had stated in the application form that their home district is Gumla. Thus, it appears that their home district is Gumla and as per clause 9 of the advertisement of the district Gumla, the examination was given by these appellants at Gumla. Upon conjoint reading of Clause 5, 8 and 9 of the advertisement, the candidature of these appellants will be treated for district Gumla. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Once the candidate is appearing in the examination in the district Gumla, they will be treated as a candidate for the very same district. (iv) It has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Anil Kumar Mehta reported in 2014(4) JCR429that once the candidate is accepting conditions of the advertisement and is appearing in the examination, thereafter, those conditions cannot be 4 challenged. In view of this decision, as per Clause 9 of the advertisement, the candidature of these appellants will be for district Gumla. (v) Moreover, never any objection was raised by these appellants when the admit card was given for district Gumla for appearing in the examination. The said admit card is also annexed as Annexure 3 to the Letters Patent Appeal, which also reveals that these appellants have to appear for district Gumla. Thus, clause 9 of the advertisement has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
5) As a cumulative effect of the facts and reasons stated above, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal which is hereby dismissed. (D. N. Patel, J) Manoj/ (Pramath Patnaik, J)