Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 367 (JHR)

Tushar Kanti Ganguly v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-03-24

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

body2003
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this appeal, the petitioner in the writ petition (CWJC No. 1401 of 2001), has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.6.2002 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the appointment to respondent No. 3 to the post of Director, Ranchi Institute of Neuro Psychiatry and Allied Sciences, Kanke. Ranchi and on the further ground that the respondent No. 3 did possess the requisite qualification, as can be seen from the counter-affidavit. 3. As regard the first aspect, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a fact that the appellant had not applied for the post pursuant to the advertisement, but still the appellant is entitled to show that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was illegal, since respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification as per the advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post in question. Apparent confusion regarding the qualification of respondent No. 3 is clear from Annexure-C produced along with the affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary. Medical Education and Research Department to Health. Government of Jharkhand and Annexure-C produced indicating that the Screening Committee, on receipt of applications, took the view that unless the conditions that the candidate should possess the qualification of teaching experience in terms of the notification, is waived, none of the applications would be considered. So, according to the appellant, respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification. But, according to respondent No. 3 he did possess the qualification regarding teaching experience as can be seen from his documents produced. It may be noted that the subsequent correspondence between the appointing authority and the Army Headquarters indicates that by applying the relevant norms, respondent No. 3 can claim to possess the necessary teaching experience insisted upon by the notification. However, we think that it is not necessary to go into these questions at this stage. We find that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was on a contractual basis and it was for three years, and the period would expire on 14.9.2003. 4. However, we think that it is not necessary to go into these questions at this stage. We find that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was on a contractual basis and it was for three years, and the period would expire on 14.9.2003. 4. We find some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appointment of respondent No. 3 on contractual basis was not justified, especially when this Court had earlier directed that regular appointment to the post of Director should be made ex-peditiously, and the present appointment should have been set aside on that ground. 5. Taking note of the fact that respondent No. 3 has served out most of the period of his appointment, we think that the only direction that is necessary is to direct respondent No. 2. the Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand to ensure that on the expiry of the present term of respondent No. 3 based on his contractual appointment, the appointment to the post should be made only on the basis of a regular selection and not on the basis of any contract and that the selection should be made only after processing the applications and taking into consideration the requisite qualifications and experience as per the advertisement issued in that behalf. In other words, only as per the terms and conditions for appointment in the advertisement and based on the requisite qualifications specified therein the respondent State should appoint a candidate- to the post in question, if he is found eligible for appointment and that too, by way of regular appointment. 6. Thus we dispose of this appeal and vacate the finding of the learned Single Judge that respondent No. 3 possessed the requisite qualification and leave it open to the respondent State to make a regular appointment to the post in accordance with law on the expiry of the contractual term of respondent No. 3. We permit respondent No. 3 to continue to function in the post of Director until the expiry of the term of his contract. We direct the respondent No. 2, the Secretary, to make a regular appointment after a proper selection. We permit respondent No. 3 to continue to function in the post of Director until the expiry of the term of his contract. We direct the respondent No. 2, the Secretary, to make a regular appointment after a proper selection. Since the term of the contractual appointment of respondent No. 3 is to expire by 14.9.2003, the respondent Secretary is directed to set in motion the process for a fresh regular selection expeditiously and well in time so that a regular appointment can be made immediately on the expiry of the term of the contract of respondent No. 3.