Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1626 (JHR)

Aklu Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-19

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT This application is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners have challenged the order of the respondents dated 07.02.20078 whereby the results in respect of the examination held pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/2006, has been cancelled. The petitioners have also questioned the authority of the respondents in laying down the upper educational eligibility criteria as Matriculation, in the advertisement No. 1/06 and have further prayed for quashing that part of Clause 2 of the advertisement No. 1/06 whereby the upper educational qualification has been laid down as eligibility criteria. The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to make appointments of the candidates in accordance with the results published. 4. The facts of the case in brief is that the State Government had published an advertisement, referred to as advertisement No. 1/06, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on Class-IV posts in the Pakur Collectoriate and other offices of the State Government. In Clause 2 of the advertisement, the upper educational qualification eligibility criteria of Matriculation was stipulated. 5. In response to the advertisement, the petitioners submitted their respective applications. They were given admit cards and allowed to appear at the written examinations. After conducting the examinations, the results of the examinations were published in which the petitioners were declared as successful. However, instead of proceeding further to appoint the selected candidates in accordance with the order of merit, the respondents by the impugned order, had cancelled the results and thereby have refused to make any appointment whatsoever on the basis of the results of the written examinations. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 namely the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, itis sought to be explained that in the advertisement issued, the educational eligibility qualification as laid down, was that the candidates should be qualified above 8th passed up to Matriculation and not above Matriculation. 7. Many candidates who had possessed qualifications above Matriculation had also applied but they were not given admit cards. Those who were allowed to appear at the examination and were declared successful, had enclosed along with their respective applications, a circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms of the State of Bihar, which was issued after the creation of the State of Jharkhand. Those who were allowed to appear at the examination and were declared successful, had enclosed along with their respective applications, a circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms of the State of Bihar, which was issued after the creation of the State of Jharkhand. In the circular, the condition relating to the higher qualification has been relaxed in the light of the judgement passed by the Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 1020 of 2001. 8. Upon being informed about the directions and observations contained in the order of the High Court in the aforementioned L.P.A. and the observations contained in the order passed by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5310 of 1998, the concerned authorities of the respondents had realized that the condition relating to the educational qualification, as stipulated in the advertisement, was not in consonance with the directions contained in the High Court's order and also in the circular issued by the State Government. Consequently the District Establishment Committee had decided to cancel the panel which was prepared on the basis of the results published. 9. From the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and also on going through the pleadings, it appears that even though the petitioners were allowed to appear at the examinations and were declared successful in the results published, but on the ground that the educational qualification criteria as stipulated in the original advertisement was erroneous and not in consonance with the policy decision of the Government, the entire selection process was cancelled and wound up. 10. Apparently, even though the petitioners were found successful in the examinations conducted, but the very advertisement as also the examination which was conducted, was not in consonance with the policy decision of the State Government in as much as, the educational qualification criteria was not declared correctly. 11. It further appears that in spite of knowledge of the aforesaid conditions regarding the educational qualifications criteria, the petitioners did apply and had participated in the examinations. As such, they cannot possibly raise any issue relating to the criteria or conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Furthermore, merely because the petitioners were declared successful in the written examination, it in itself does not give any right to the petitioners to claim appointment on the basis of the results. 12. As such, they cannot possibly raise any issue relating to the criteria or conditions stipulated in the advertisement. Furthermore, merely because the petitioners were declared successful in the written examination, it in itself does not give any right to the petitioners to claim appointment on the basis of the results. 12. The cancellation of the results of the examinations has been properly explained in the counter affidavit and further rmore, it is within the discretion of the respondent authorities to stop the selection process at any point of time when it is satisfied that the process suffers from any illegality or irregularity. 13. On the basis of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for issuance of a writ of the nature they have prayed for and the reliefs claimed. Accordingly this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to apply in response to any fresh advertisement issued by the respondent State Government for appointment to the Class -IV posts. 14. If any vacancy in the Class-IV posts do exist, the concerned authorities of the respondents shall endeavour to fill up such vacancies and to initiate the required process for selection of candidates for filling up the vacancies, preferably within a period of six months from today.