Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1303 (JHR)

Sachchidanand Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-09-16

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT Prayer in this writ application as originally made, was for a direction upon the Respondents to pay the salary of the petitioners, which has remained unpaid, since 17.09.2005. By a subsequent amendment to the writ application, a further prayer was added for quashing the order, whereby the services of the petitioners was terminated as contained in Annexure-13 series to the writ application. 2. Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Jalisur Rahman, J.C. to G.P. IV, for the Respondent-State. 3. The facts of the petitioners’ case in brief are as follows: In response to an Advertisement dated-28.08.2002 (Annexure-1), the petitioners applied for the post of Teachers. They appeared at the written Test and at the Interview and they were declared selected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, who had recommended their candidatures for their appointment. In terms of Circular dated-09.03.2005 (Annexure-2), the petitioners were appointed on the post of Teachers on 30.09.2005, vide letters of appointment (Annexure-3, 4 and 5). Though, they joined on their respective posts upon being given the letters of appointment and were continuously working, their salaries payable from the date of their joining on the post, was not paid to them. In response to their several representations, the Respondents served show-cause notices (Annexure-11) upon the petitioners on 14.12.2006. The petitioners submitted their replies to the show cause notices vide Annexure-12. When in spite of submission of their representations and explanations to the show-cause notices they were not paid their salaries, the petitioners filed the present writ application. During the pendency of this writ application, by the impugned order (Annexure-13 series), their services were terminated on the ground that they had failed to produce the Caste Certificate issued by the authorities of the State of Jharkhand in terms of the Judgment dated-01.05.2006, rendered in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005. 4. Assailing the impugned order of termination, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the ground taken by the Respondents for terminating the services of the petitioners purportedly on the basis of the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005, is totally misconceived and misleading, as because the judgment in the aforesaid L.P.A., rendered on 01.05.2006, has no bearing whatsoever with the case of the present petitioners as because it is a judgment passed long after the appointment of the petitioners and after acceptance of their Joining Reports. In any case, the Respondents cannot apply the judgment retrospectively to the case of the petitioners. Learned counsel adds further that no enquiry was held by the Respondents before canceling their regular appointments and such cancellation of their appointments is violative of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel adds further that even if the initial appointment of the petitioners claimed to have been given under the reserved category and if it is considered that the petitioners were not entitled for appointment in the reserved category, the claim of the petitioners under the General category cannot be denied to them. In support of his contention, learned counsel would want to refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave-versus-Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar reported in (2008) 9 SCC54. 5. The stand taken in the counter affidavit by the Respondents is that though the petitioners were selected and granted appointment but it was found that the Caste Certificates, on the basis of which they had claimed their appointment under the reserved category, were not issued by any of the competent authorities of the State of Jharkhand. Rather, such Certificates were purportedly issued by the authorities concerned of the other States. In the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005 and analogous cases, it was categorically declared that candidates, who had enclosed their Certificates, issued by the District-authorities, now fall within the State of Bihar or the Certificate issued by the State of Bihar, cannot claim reservation for appointment in the service of the State of Jharkhand. Similarly those certificates, which have been obtained from the competent authorities of the State of Jharkhand, after the last date of filling up of the application forms, cannot be taken into consideration to grant the benefit of reservation. It is further explained that in the light of the above decision of the High Court and upon detection that the Certificates produced initially by the petitioners issued by the authorities of the different States, other than the State of Jharkhand, their applications could not be legally entertainable. It is further explained that in the light of the above decision of the High Court and upon detection that the Certificates produced initially by the petitioners issued by the authorities of the different States, other than the State of Jharkhand, their applications could not be legally entertainable. Furthermore, even if the petitioners have obtained the Caste Certificates from the competent authorities of the various districts in the State of Jharkhand and have subsequently submitted such Certificates, but again in the light of the aforesaid judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005, the Certificates of the candidates obtained from the district authorities of the State of Jharkhand after the last date of submission of the application Form, cannot be taken into consideration to grant them the benefit of reservation. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents would argue that in the light of the above facts, the very appointment of the petitioners in the reserved category is void ab initio and as such, the petitioners even if they had rendered service, they are not entitled to any salary and the order of termination of their services, is perfectly legal. 7. From the rival submissions of the parties, the facts which are admitted, are that in response to the Advertisement published by the State Government, the petitioners had submitted their applications and upon being called by the authorities concerned, they had appeared at the written Test as well as at the viva-voce and they were selected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and recommended for their appointment. The petitioners were issued letters of appointment pursuant to which, they had joined their respective places of posting. 8. The controversy as raised by the Respondents is based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, passed in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005 and analogous cases, which was delivered on 01.05.2006. The writ petitioners in the aforesaid L.P.A. were a batch of Teachers, who had applied in response to the same Advertisement dated-28.08.2002 (Annexure-1). 8. The controversy as raised by the Respondents is based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, passed in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005 and analogous cases, which was delivered on 01.05.2006. The writ petitioners in the aforesaid L.P.A. were a batch of Teachers, who had applied in response to the same Advertisement dated-28.08.2002 (Annexure-1). Some of those teachers amongst the batch including one Arvind Kumar Prabhat in W.P. (S) No. 4363 of 2004 and Sanju Kumari (appellant in L.P.A. No. 457 of 2004), who were granted appointment letters on the basis of the Caste Certificates produced by them, which were issued by the authorities of the districts of the State of Bihar and State of Uttar Pradesh, were aggrieved because of the termination of their appointment. The Division Bench of this Court while considering the cases had observed as under: “15. So far as petitioner Arvind Kumar Prabhat of W.P. (S) No. 4363 of 2004 and appellant Sanju Kumari of L.P.A. No. 457 of 2004 are concerned, they having produced caste certificates, issued by the district authorities, which fall within the State of Bihar, cannot claim benefit of reservation. If they were appointed wrongly against the reserves posts, they should make room for others, who actually belong to reserved categories of the State of Jharkhand. In this situation, this Court is not inclined to interfere with their orders of termination both dated 17th February, 2004 and no relief can be granted.” 9. In the present case, admittedly, the Caste Certificates which the petitioners had enclosed alongwith their respective applications and on the basis of which they were granted appointment in the reserved categories, were those which were issued by the concerned authorities of districts within the States other than the State of Jharkhand. 10. It may be relevant to note that the appointment letters to the individual candidates including the petitioners, contained several conditions. Two of such conditions of relevance are: -(i) that the appointment was purely temporary and (ii) that the Certificates, including the Certificates relating to the Educational Qualifications, Teachers Training and Caste would be subjected to scrutiny and only if it is found correct and obtained from recognized institutions, that the salaries as stipulated in the appointment letters, would be paid to them. 11. 11. It is also relevant to note that the appointment letters to the Teachers including the petitioners, were issued by the Respondent, pursuant to the orders by this Court passed in several writ petitions including W.P. (S) No. 1448 of 2005. Although the Respondent-State of Jharkhand had preferred L.P.A. No. 722 of 2004 against the judgment of the Single Judge, passed in the aforesaid W.P. (S) No. 1448 of 2005, as it appears, the judgment passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005 and other batch of Appeals include L.P.A. No. 722 of 2004. 12. The Division Bench in its judgment passed in the batch of Appeals, had set aside the judgment of the Single Judge, rendered in W.P. (S) No. 1448 of 2005. Referring specifically to the L.P.A. No. 722 of 2004 and L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005, the Court has observed in Para 16 of the Judgment as follows: - “16. So far as private respondents of L.P.A. Nos. 722 of 2004 and 570 of 2005 are concerned, they have produced the caste certificates, issued by the district authorities of the State of Bihar. Thus, they are also not entitled to claim appointment against the reserved posts in the State of Jharkhand. In such background the learned Single Judge should not have allowed their prayer.” 13. It is manifest from the above facts that the judgment of the Single Judge on the basis of which, the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners was set aside by the Division Bench, holding that the same was contrary to the settled principle of law. 14. While recording its judgment, the Division Bench had followed the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in several judgments, declaring that a person, certified as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, in relation to one State, if migrates to another State, he would not be entitled to the benefits of reservation, available to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes of the State, in which he so migrates, unless he belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in that State also. The Division Bench had also taken note of the Notification, issued by the State of Jharkhand vide letter No. 7/Vi.Vi.R-14-02/05 Ka.1219, dated 29th April, 2005 containing directions issued to all concerned authorities not to issue Caste Certificates to those who are permanent residents of other States. 15. The Division Bench had also taken note of the Notification, issued by the State of Jharkhand vide letter No. 7/Vi.Vi.R-14-02/05 Ka.1219, dated 29th April, 2005 containing directions issued to all concerned authorities not to issue Caste Certificates to those who are permanent residents of other States. 15. The underlying feature of the Division Bench judgment is that the candidates cannot claim a right to hold appointment granted to them, which was per se illegal and contrary to the established principles of law. The judgment, declares categorically that only such Certificates, which were issued by the competent authorities of the districts within the State of Jharkhand and which were submitted by the Candidates alongwith their respective applications, could be considered. Such Certificates issued by the authorities of districts other than those of the State of Jharkhand, are not valid. It also declares that the candidates who produced the Caste Certificates issued by the authorities of the State of Jharkhand, after the last date of submission of the application Forms, their candidature should not be entertained. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not indicated any difference between the cases of the present petitioners and the cases of those, whose appointment was earlier cancelled under similar circumstances and such cancellation has been confirmed by the Division Bench Judgment, passed in the aforementioned L.P.A. No. 728 of 2004 and other batch of appeals. 17. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.