Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 296 (JHR)

Jitendra Prasad Sharma v. Union of India

2003-03-03

TAPEN SEN

body2003
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J.-Heard Mr. Vikas Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The admitted case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed in the School initially on 1.12.1990 and worked for about four months i.e. up to 30.4.1991 whereafter he was discontinued. He was again appointed on 4.11.1991 and worked for about five months, i.e. up to 30.4.1991. According to the Petitioner, he was again appointed on 10.7.1992 (Vide Annexure-5) and worked for short period as would be evident from Annexures-5, 6, 7 and 8. 3. The Petitioner states that in the year 1994 vacancies were advertised and applications called for. The Petitioner also applied but he was not issued with any letter of interview. According to the Petitioner, a similar matter arose for consideration before the then Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.1 040 of 1995 (R). By Judgment dated 4.7.1995 (Annexure-1) that Court while referring to another Judgment, observed that if the Petitioners apply for selection and if they were otherwise not disqualified, then they should not be out-listed for interview for selection to the post of teacher. Accordingly, a writ was issued upon the Respondents to issue interview letter to the Petitioner if she was found to be otherwise eligible. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the aforementioned Judgment and prays that this Petitioner should also not have been listed out and should have been issued a letter of interview to allow him to participate. 5. Mr. M.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents submits with reference to paragraph 7 to the Counter Affidavit that all that the Petitioner has to his credit is that he had worked for certain periods on part time basis and that he was not appointed against the posts and that the Respondents weekind enough to appoint him against one or other vacancies. 6. The aforesaid statements made in the Counter Affidavit does establish that the Respondents in this case had adopted a policy of "hire and fire" or' had adopted a policy of adhocism which is neither fair nor proper. 7. Mr. M.M. Prasad than submitted that the Petitioner had scored only 36.65 marks whereas the cut off marks was 60.46 for calling candidates for interview. 7. Mr. M.M. Prasad than submitted that the Petitioner had scored only 36.65 marks whereas the cut off marks was 60.46 for calling candidates for interview. He states that the Petitioner could not have been called for interview because his position was very low in the merit list. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Prasad relied upon paragraph 4 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit. 8. This Court is not able to understand as to why notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner had worked at repeated intervals for quite a long period of time, should not have been at least given a chance to participate in a process of selection. The fixation of cut off marks therefore appears to be unreasonable. 9. This Court therefore would have issued a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate but taking into consideration that the selection process relates to the year 1994 and the Writ Application having been filed in the year 1995, so many years have in the mean time, gone by, therefore such a direction at this stage would not be proper. The learned counsel for the Respondents is also not sure nor is the learned counsel for the Petitioner able to give any details as to whether there still exists any vacancy or not. Under such circumstances this Court cannot give a direction unless, there is a vacancy which is still in existence and which can be filled up by the Petitioner. 10. In that view of the matter, all that can be said is that if there is still any scope of any fresh vacancy and if the Petitioner applies pursuant to such fresh advertisement then the Respondents shall allow the Petitioner to participate provided of course he fulfills all other eligibility criteria. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed off.