Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1020 (JHR)

Balram Paswan v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-28

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction upon the 'respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of 4th grade employee in pursuance to the advertisement bearing advertisement no. V02/2002 dated 24.4.2002 issued by the Assistant Director (Employment), Additional Regional Employment Exchange, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 4). A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners immediately and forthwith and to give their posting against the vacant posts and also to grant and pay the consequential benefits to them as extended to the similarly situated persons whose names were also recommended for their appointment to the post of 4th grade employee alongwith the petitioners. 2. The case of the petitioners is that in response to the advertisement (Annexure-1) issued by the respondent no. 4 for preparing panel to make appointment on the Class-IV posts, the petitioners had submitted their candidature by virtue of their respective applications. The petitioners 1 to 13 belong to the scheduled castes category, while petitioners 14 to 23 belong to the category of other backward classes. The petitioners do possess the requisite qualification for their appointment to the aforementioned post. The petitioners were Issued admit cards and they had appeared at the written test and had also participated in the physical test. Respondents selected 450 candidates for preparing a panel and the names of the petitioners alongwith their respective roll nos. appeared in the selection list. The respondents published second and third list and a panel of total number of 676 candidates was prepared and published by the respondents. The respondents recommended the names of 346 candidates only as per existing vacancies in the various offices of" the Hazaribagh District. The names and roll numbers of the petitioners also finds place in the list of recommended candidates. However, the respondents issued appointment letters in favour of 308 candidates only out of 346 recommended candidates, excluding the petitioners. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the Rules relating to the selection of candidates for their appointment, there is provision for making roster arrangement in terms of which 18% of the vacancies are reserved for the scheduled castes candidates, 24% for other backward classes, 8% for the scheduled tribes candidates and the remaining candidates for the general category. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the Rules relating to the selection of candidates for their appointment, there is provision for making roster arrangement in terms of which 18% of the vacancies are reserved for the scheduled castes candidates, 24% for other backward classes, 8% for the scheduled tribes candidates and the remaining candidates for the general category. This, according to the petitioners, was not adhered to by the respondents while issuing appointment letters. The contention of the petitioners is that by resorting to pick and choose method, the respondents have issued appointment letters to the candidates placed much below the petitioners in the merit list and have thereby deprived the petitioners of their valuable right of appointment. It is further contended that the petitioners alongwith the other remaining candidates, had submitted their representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh vide Annexure-6 on 15.4.2006, but no action has been taken on the same as yet. It is further contended that a large number of vacancies in Class-IV posts in the District of Hazaribagh still exist and the petitioners are entitled to their appointment against the vacant post, since they possess all the requisite qualification and fulfill all the eligibility criteria and since their names were earlier recommended by the respondents themselves for their appointment. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1, 2 and 5, it has been acknowledged that the petitioners 1 to 13 fall within the scheduled castes category and are in the merit list, though their position are below in the merit list. It is also acknowledged that 308 candidates have been recommended so far, out of which, 143 candidates are in the general category, 55 in the scheduled caste category, 32 in the scheduled tribes category and 78 in the OBC category. It has been explained that the candidates whose names appeared in the waiting list at serial nos. 78 to 83, are females and orthopedically handicapped persons and therefore, their names have been recommended for their appointment since they do deserve such recommendation on the basis of reservation policy. 5. The petitioners seek to controvert the above submission by contending that the respondents have wrongly shown the actual percentage given to the different categories. 78 to 83, are females and orthopedically handicapped persons and therefore, their names have been recommended for their appointment since they do deserve such recommendation on the basis of reservation policy. 5. The petitioners seek to controvert the above submission by contending that the respondents have wrongly shown the actual percentage given to the different categories. Learned counsel for the petitioners explains that, even as admitted by the respondents, recommendation of total number of 346 candidates have been made out of whom, 173 candidates have been shown in the general category, 62 in the scheduled castes category, 21 in the scheduled tribes category and 83 in other backward class category. Yet, even on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, only 308 candidates have been appointed out of whom, 38 candidates belong to the scheduled castes category and 17 to the backward class category, which, according to the learned counsel, does not correspond to the correct percentage meant for the reserved category. Learned counsel explains further that the figures would confirm on the other hand that 100% candidates of general category and 100% of scheduled castes category have been appointed from the recommended list taking into account the total number of recommended candidates including female, handicapped persons and sports persons, although there is no reservation for such category of candidates specified in the advertisement. It is further disputed that the candidates mentioned at serial 38 to 56 did not actually belong to the scheduled castes category. Rather, these candidates belong to the other backward class category. Learned counsel points out further that even otherwise, candidates whose names appeared at serial nos. 33 to 56 have not been actually appointed. Furthermore, no waiting list was ever notified in the recommended list and the purported waiting list has been mentioned for the first time in the counter affidavit. 6. From the facts stated by the petitioner as also appearing from the counter affidavit of the respondents, admittedly, the names of 346 candidates was recommended by the Selection Committee for their appointment to the vacant posts. The appointment letters have been given to only 308 candidates. 6. From the facts stated by the petitioner as also appearing from the counter affidavit of the respondents, admittedly, the names of 346 candidates was recommended by the Selection Committee for their appointment to the vacant posts. The appointment letters have been given to only 308 candidates. Though, it is on the part of the employer whether to fill up the existing vacancy or not, is within its domain and normally, the courts would not interfere in such matters, but where allegation of discrimination and arbitrariness have been made, it would certainly call for scrutiny by the court. In the instant case, specific ground has been stated by the petitioners that even in the matter of issuing appointment letters to only 308 candidates, roster arrangement has not been followed strictly according to the rules and the petitioners, who deserved to be considered on the basis of the reservation, in their respective categories, have been arbitrarily discriminated and candidates below them in the merit list, have been issued with appointment letters on the plea that they too fall under the reserved categories. The grounds explained by the respondents for issuing appointment letters to the persons below the petitioners in the merit list, does not appear to be altogether satisfactory since, the petitioners also fall under the reserved categories. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the counsel for the petitioners, roster arrangement has not been adhered to by the respondents in accordance with the rules strictly. Admittedly, the petitioners by virtue of the categories to which they belong, do fall within the zone of consideration for their appointment, particularly 'in view' of the fact that they have been selected and their names have been placed in the list of 346 candidates who have been recommended by the Selection Committee for their appointment. It has not been stated or even suggested by the respondents that the validity/merit of the selection list of 346 candidates does not continue to survive. 7. It has not been stated or even suggested by the respondents that the validity/merit of the selection list of 346 candidates does not continue to survive. 7. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, if the merit/selection list of 346 candidates continues to survive, the respondents should consider the representation of the present petitioners (Annexure-6) -for their appointment to the existing vacant Class-IV posts in the District of Hazaribagh keeping in view of the fact that the petitioners were selected and recommended for their appointment in the list of 346 candidates submitted earlier by the Selection Committee and the respondents shall communicate the decision on the representation to the petitioners, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of the order be given to the counsel for the respondent-State.