Rajendra Ram and Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1749 of 2009 with W.P.(S) No. 1752 of 2009 1. Rajendra Ram 2. Rajesh Kumar 3. Binod Kumar 4. Manoj Kumar @ Sanoj Kumar 5. Rajendra Kr. Singh 6. Asfaque Akhtar 7. Gautam 8. Satish Kumar Singh 9. Birendra Kumar Pandey 10.Arbind Kumar 11.Anil Kumar 12.Dhirendra Kumar Pandey 13.Akhilesh Kumar Jha 14.Kaushal Kumar 15.Pankaj Kumar 16.Rajeev Kumar 17.Mahendra Ram ... ... Petitioners (In WPS1749of 2009) 1. Ajay Kumar Sinha 2. Surendra Mistri 3. Vijay Kumar Sinha 4. Rosan Kumar 5. Jaishankar Kumar 6. Abhay Kumar 7. Vijay Mistri 8. Pankaj Kumar 9. Anil Kumar Singh 10.Kamlesh Kumar 11.Balram Kumar 12.Sanjay Kumar 13.Sanjay Kumar Singh 14.Arbind Kumar 15.Dinesh Kumar Singh 16.Rubi Kumari 17.Chandra Kala Kumari 18.Ramawtar Prasad Singh ... ... Petitioners (In WPS1752of 2009) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The State of Bihar 3. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar 6. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 7. Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar 8. Superintending Engineer (Mechanical Wing), Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi 2.

9. Executive Engineer (Mechanical Wing), Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi 10.Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Hazaribagh, Advance Planning Circle, Ranchi … Respondents ( In both the cases) CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Nilesh Kumar Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P. I, For the State of Bihar : J.C. to Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate --- Order No. 7 Dated 5 .8. 2015 Since common questions of law and fact are involved in both these writ petitions, the same are disposed of by this common order. In these writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to forthwith consider the appointment of the petitioners on class III & IV posts in the Mechanical Wing of Road Construction Department (RCD for short) in terms of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2338 of 1998(R). A further direction has been sought for by the petitioners to direct the respondents to publish all the vacant posts of Class III and IV in the Road Construction Department as inspite of repeated orders of this Court, the vacant posts are not being filled-up. The petitioners were in service since 1995 till 1998 and since the services of the petitioners were not regularized several employees/ petitioners, total 110 in numbers belonging to the RCD, Mechanical Wing had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2338 of 1998(R) which was finally disposed of on 27.11.1999 directing the respondent erstwhile State of Bihar to take necessary steps for filling up the posts lying vacant in the RCD. The order dated 27.11.1999 was subsequently modified on 16.12.1999 to the extent that while filling up the vacant posts it shall also consider the case of the petitioners by giving relaxation in the age for the reason that they have served the Department for a long time. Inspite of the specific direction of this Court, the petitioners were not accommodated either in Class IV or in the Class III posts and resultantly the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned J.C. to G.P. I for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted at the outset that in similar circumstance with respect to an employee of Mechanical Wing of the RCD who had moved this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 7386 of 2012 an order was 3. passed on 8.9.2013 directing the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioners of the said case on Class IV post. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioners are squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP.(S) No. 7386 of 2012. He further submits that there are still several vacant posts in the RCD and in such circumstances the case of the petitioners deserves to be considered by the respondents in Class IV posts. Opposing the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned J.C. to G.P. I while relying on the counter affidavit which has been filed recently has submitted that since the petitioners have restricted their prayer for consideration of their appointments in the Mechanical Wing of the RCD, in such circumstance, such prayer cannot be considered. It has further been submitted that the petitioners had never moved for redressal of their grievances before the authorities nor the petitioners have claimed appointment with respect to the vacant posts in the RCD itself. The factual aspects, which have been put forward by the learned counsel for the parties, reveals that at the initial stage when the writ petition was filed, there were 9 posts which were vacant in the Mechanical Wing of the RCD as well as 103 posts vacant in the Department and considering the same an order was passed in W.P.(S) No. 7386 of 2012 for grant of appointment to the petitioner of that case on a class IV post. Admittedly the claim of the petitioners have not been considered by the authorities even after various judicial orders having been passed. In such circumstances, It would be desirable that the claim of the petitioners for their appointments to Class IV posts in the RCD be considered by the authorities at the first instance. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation(s) before the respondent No. 4 along with all supporting documents within a period of four weeks from today and if such representation is filed, respondent No. 4 is directed to look into the matter and after considering the grievance of the petitioners pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 8 weeks. The respondent No. 4 while considering the representation of the petitioners shall also take note of the order which has been passed in the case of Rubi Kumari [W.P.(S) No. 7386 of 2012] (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) MK