Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1209 (JHR)

Md. Ekramul Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-28

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2.The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.08.2000 as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition by which rejoining of the petitioner to the post of clerk was cancelled. Prayer has also been made to quash the letter dated 23.08.2002 as contained in Annexure-10 by which, the Additional Director, Secondary Education, communicated to the petitioner that after consideration, his case was not found fit and accordingly, the same was rejected. 3.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of three months on 28.02.1987 but subsequently, by order of the District Education Officer, dated 05.06.1987, as contained in Annexure-1, he was appointed on temporary post in the pay scale of Rs.580 – 860 till further orders. Subsequently, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on 07.12.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner moved for review of the said order by filing an application but the same was also refused by order dated 04.11.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 270 of 1995. By order dated 25.07.1995, as contained in Annexure-3, the High Court held that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be upheld on the ground of equity or mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was also observed that all that can be done is to direct the petitioner to be entitled to due weightage of past satisfactory works experience at the time of regular appointment and accordingly, R.D.D.E. Santhal Pargana was directed to advertise the vacant posts and take steps for making regular appointments in accordance with law. The petitioner was held to be entitled with relaxation of age-bar, if any, to the extent of the period of service rendered by him. The said order was also affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 807 of 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 22198/96 but the same was dismissed upholding the order of the High Court. 4.Thereafter, it appears that by order dated 7th May, 1997, as contained in Annexure-6, R.D.D.E. Santhal Pargana (Respondent No. 4) allowed the petitioner to rejoin the service on the vacant post of clerk. According to the petitioner, he joined the said post which has ultimately been cancelled by issue of order dated 24.08.2000 as contained in Annexure-8 and confirmed by Annexure-10. According to the petitioner, he joined the said post which has ultimately been cancelled by issue of order dated 24.08.2000 as contained in Annexure-8 and confirmed by Annexure-10. 5.From the facts narrated above, it is clear that when the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the High Court then the R.D.D.E. Santhal Pargana had no jurisdiction at all to allow the petitioner to rejoin on the post of Clerk. The order passed by R.D.D.E. Santhal Pargana as contained in Annexure-6 was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the joining of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by issue of Annexure-8 and affirmed by Annexure-10. 6.Thus, on consideration of the facts stated above, I do not find it a fit case for any interference. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.