Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1301 (JHR)

Prashant Verma v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-29

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER By the Court. - Challenging order dated 18.02.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. On 20.02.2010, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment on the post of Director, Agriculture. The petitioner participated in the selection process and a provisional recommendation was sent by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short 'JPSC') in favour of the petitioner. However, since the petitioner was not appointed, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3048 of 2011. During the proceeding of the writ petition, order dated 14.07.2011 was passed which was impugned by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3048 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.07.2012 in the following terms: “Accordingly, the order dated 14.07.2011 as contained in Annexure 13 as well as in Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit is hereby set aside. However, the matter is again sent before the concerned authority so that petitioner's work experience as has been claimed under Annexure 12, the certificate granted by the Holy Cross Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hazaribagh and also under Annexure 11 series, the certificates granted by the Vidhan Chandra Krishi Vishwavidyalaya be again determined and on determination, a fresh order be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till then, the State Government/Jharkhand Public Service Commission shall not proceed with the matter relating to appointment on the post of Director of Agriculture, pursuant to the advertisement issued on 23.05.2012.” 4. The Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane took the matter in appeal being L.P.A. No. 324 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 30.01.2013 permitting the appellants that they were also required to examine whether the criteria for experience was an additional criteria or an alternative one. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order dated 18.02.2013 has been passed which has been assailed by the petitioner in the present proceeding. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the stand taken in the impugned order thus; 18. “That the answering respondents humbly submits that pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2013 the answering opposite party has passed a reasoned order on 18.02.2013 in terms of which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the stand taken in the impugned order thus; 18. “That the answering respondents humbly submits that pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2013 the answering opposite party has passed a reasoned order on 18.02.2013 in terms of which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The ground for rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is that the eligibility criterion on administrative experience of 05 years is a mandatory condition. The petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of 20 years work experience and 05 years administrative experience. Further, the period of 03 year 03 months during which the petitioner pursued Ph.D cannot be taken to work experience as the same is a higher educational qualification for which there was provision of giving weightage of additional 10 marks to the candidates. The said order was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.” 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even after remand, the respondent-authority has taken a view contrary to the observation made by this Court and the experience of the petitioner while pursuing Ph. D. course has been ignored and not taken into account while counting the work/field experience of 20 years which was a requirement in the advertisement. He has further submitted that in the advertisement dated 20.02.2010, nowhere it has been mentioned that the 5 years' work experience in administrative capacity is an additional criteria. He has relied on the experience criteria as published in the advertisement dated 20.02.2010 and contended that after the publication of the advertisement, the respondent-authority is not permitted to change the criteria which was published and that too after the selection process was concluded and the name of the petitioner along with other two persons was recommended. He has further submitted that in the impugned order the only ground taken against the claim of the petitioner is that, since the petitioner worked in a non-government organisation, he had no requisite experience of 5 years working in administrative capacity. 8. As against the above, Mr. Ratnakar Bhengra, learned G.P. IV appearing for the respondents has contended that since the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria therefore, the recommendation of the JPSC was not accepted by the authorities. 8. As against the above, Mr. Ratnakar Bhengra, learned G.P. IV appearing for the respondents has contended that since the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria therefore, the recommendation of the JPSC was not accepted by the authorities. In terms of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order dated 18.02.2013 has been passed which is in consonance with the terms of advertisement dated 20.02.2010. 9. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the JPSC has submitted that the recommendation of the Commission is only provisional and it is for the State Government to take a final decision in the matter. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the issue involved in this case lies in a narrow compass and it can be decided by looking at the terms of the advertisement alone. In the advertisement dated 20.02.2010, it has been mentioned as under: “(A) Work Experience – 20 years of work experience in the field (B) Administrative Experience – 5 years” 11. It appears that in the earlier proceeding also the State had taken a plea that the experience of 5 years in the Administrative capacity is a mandatory condition and that is the reason the Letters Patent Court in its order dated 30.01.2013 clarified that the respondent-authority has to take the final decision in this regard and observed as under: “..........So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that petitioner was lacking administrative experience of 05 years which is also a mandatory condition in the advertisement; that issue is also required to be examined by the concerned authorities themselves to find out whether it was the mandatory condition in addition to work experience or it was an additional qualification. With these observations, this L.P.A. is disposed of.” 12. I am of the view that on a bare reading of the advertisement, it is amply clear that a person seeking appointment on the post of Director, Agriculture must possess the following qualifications, (i) 20 years of field experience, and (ii) 5 years' administrative experience. 13. Admittedly, besides not having 20 years of work experience, the petitioner does not possess 5 years of experience in administrative capacity. In my view the 5 years' experience in administrative capacity is in addition to 20 years of work experience in the field. 13. Admittedly, besides not having 20 years of work experience, the petitioner does not possess 5 years of experience in administrative capacity. In my view the 5 years' experience in administrative capacity is in addition to 20 years of work experience in the field. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a candidate is required to have work experience of 20 years only, out of which 5 years should be in the administrative capacity. The work experience of 20 years and administrative experience of 5 years both have been separately mentioned in the advertisement and on a plain reading of the experience criteria, it cannot be assumed that the administrative experience of 5 years is included in the 20 years of work experience. There is no indication in the advertisement that the requirements mentioned in Clause (A) and Clause (B) in the experience column are not separate and independent conditions. In this view of the mater, I am of the opinion that the terms of advertisement have not been changed by the respondents. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has laid stress that no ground has been taken in the impugned order dated 18.02.2013 that the petitioner does not possess 5 years' administrative experience. I am of the view that even if an order cannot sustain the scrutiny of law, the Court cannot interfere in a matter if, interference would perpetuate the illegality. On a plain reading of the advertisement and the facts admitted in the present proceeding, since the petitioner does not possess the additional experience of 5 years in administrative capacity besides, 20 years of work experience, I am of the view that the impugned order does not require interference. 15. In “Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another” reported in (2003) 6 SCC 545 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 43. “Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy. (See Champalal Binani v. CIT.) The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India which need not be exercised in a case where the impugned judgment is found to be erroneous if by reason thereof substantial justice is being done. [See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd.] Such a relief can be denied, inter alia, when it would be opposed to public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal order would revive another illegal one. This Court also in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to pass such order which will do complete justice to the parties.” 15. The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.