Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1236 (JHR)

Shashi Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be working earlier as Driver for the period 1996 to 2005 under Pakur Collectorate. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that in a panel of Drivers prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur on 24.8.2004, the petitioner's name occurred at serial no. 31. The petitioner has having the educational qualification of 8th and comes under the category of other backward classes. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that persons below the petitioner in the said panel i.e. at serial no.47 and 48 have been appointed by the respondents vide Annexure-6 dated 31.3.2005 and Annexure-7 dated 7.4.2005 but the petitioner's case has not been considered. This amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such circumstances respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to the post of Driver from the said panel prepared in 2004. 4. It is submitted that perusal of Annexure-6 vide office order no. 15 of 2005 indicates that such an exercise was undertaken in view of the order passed by this Court in Contempt petition. Therefore, similar direction be issued in this case as well. 5. Counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer. However, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents though the matter is pending since March 2013. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties. On the face of it on the admission of the petitioner himself, it is apparent that the panel in which the petitioner claims to have been included at serial no. 31 was prepared on 24.8.2004. The persons who are said to be below the petitioner in the said panel are said to have been appointed by office order dated 31.3.2005 and 7.4.2005, Annexure-6 and 7 respectively. 7. It is well settled that a panel prepared for appointment of such class IV post is not an endless reservoir from which appointment can be made for indefinite period of time. The petitioner has approached this Court after 8 years of the alleged appointment of a person, who is junior to him in the said panel prepared in August, 2004. In these circumstances, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has approached this Court after 8 years of the alleged appointment of a person, who is junior to him in the said panel prepared in August, 2004. In these circumstances, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner. 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.