Sarita Kumari and Ors Vs. Personnel and Adminis Reform - Court 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