Maghi Oraon and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. ordernarendra nath tiwari, j.1. in this interlocutory application, the petitioners have prayed for stay of operation of advertisement no. 3 of 2007, inviting applications for recruitment against the posts of constable till the absorption of remaining successful candidates, who had been selected against advertisement no. 1 of 2003.2. it has been stated that the petitioners had been declared successful in test held for recruitment of constable against advertisement no. 1 of 2003. the posts are vacant, but the petitioners have not been appointed even after declaring them successful in the said test. ignoring the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have come out with another advertisement no. 3 of 2007, inviting applications for appointment of constable. no reason has been assigned by the respondents for not making appointment of the persons/candidates who were held successful in the earlier examination. it has been submitted that before making appointment of the petitioners, who had already been held successful, the respondents cannot advertise the posts afresh and the same is liable to be stayed till disposal of the writ petition.3. the petitioners have filed the instant writ.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. In this interlocutory application, the petitioners have prayed for stay of operation of Advertisement No. 3 of 2007, inviting applications for recruitment against the posts of Constable till the absorption of remaining successful candidates, who had been selected against Advertisement No. 1 of 2003.

2. It has been stated that the petitioners had been declared successful in test held for recruitment of constable against Advertisement No. 1 of 2003. The posts are vacant, but the petitioners have not been appointed even after declaring them successful in the said test. Ignoring the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have come out with another advertisement No. 3 of 2007, inviting applications for appointment of Constable. No reason has been assigned by the respondents for not making appointment of the persons/candidates who were held successful in the earlier examination. It has been submitted that before making appointment of the petitioners, who had already been held successful, the respondents cannot advertise the posts afresh and the same is liable to be stayed till disposal of the writ petition.

3. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition challenging the said subsequent advertisement. Any appointment made during the pendency of the writ petition will prejudice the interest of the petitioners.

4. The State respondents have contested this interlocutory application. It has been contended, inter alia, that the appointment of eligible persons against Advertisement No. 1 of 2003 has already been made and that the petitioners, being lower in rank, are not entitled for employment. For about 865 posts of Constable, fresh advertisement has been published inviting applications and the petitioners can also apply against the said advertisement. At the behest of the petitioners, who are only seven in numbers entire process of appointment of Constable cannot be stayed.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners have made out a clear case that since they were selected in the earlier selection test held against Advertisement No. 1 of 2003 and they had been declared successful, they are entitled to be appointed against the vacant posts before inviting fresh applications. The State respondents have not come out with any specific reason as to why the petitioners, who had been declared successful, have been discriminated and were not given appointment letters and in the meanwhile, all the posts of Constable have been advertised for fresh appointment. However, since the petitioners are only seven in numbers and advertised posts are several hundreds, the entire process of appointment cannot be stayed.

Considering the above, the interlocutory application (IA. No. 918 of 2008) is disposed of directing that though the respondents may proceed with the process of appointment, there shall be no final appointment against vacant posts of constables equal to the number of the petitioners until further order.