Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 945 (JHR)

Narayan Addi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-08-07

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has been preferred to appoint the petitioner as per his educational qualification in Grade-IIIrd and IVth post anywhere in the category of fully displaced person of Subarna Rekha Multi Purpose Project, Chandil as per policy applicable in the department. 3. The petitioner is claiming himself to be displaced person under the said Project. He had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4621 of 2003 for the same relief that he is not being considered for appointment as per rehabilitation policy of December, 1990 and December, 2002 and if necessary, his age be relaxed. The said writ petition was disposed of without entering into the merit of the case by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach, the Administrator, Subarna Rekha Multipurpose Project, Adityapur by observing that the Administrator may decide the claim of the petitioner within the stipulated time of three months. The said representation of the petitioner has been decided vide reasoned order dated 20.03.2009, Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner is son of holder of Vikas Pustika No.2622 in the name Sundariwala Poddarin and Vishakha Poddarin w/o Late Bhim Chandra Addi. It is stated that as per clause 9.2 of Revised Rehabilitation Policy, 2003, there are few vacant posts in the Government of Jharkhand compared to numbers of displaced persons so it is only possible to provide service to a limited number of displaced persons. Therefore, it is their considered stand that when the process of appointment in Water Resources Department will begin the petitioner along with other displaced persons will be given priority in the appointment for the post of Class-IIIrd and IVth employee. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also submits that in view of the aforesaid position, reasoned order was passed on 20.03.2009 in compliance of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 4621 of 2003 and in Contempt Case No. 218 of 2004. At the same time, mother of the petitioner was requested to receive the payment of self-employment grant of Rs. 75,000/-but she refused the same. She only wants service for her son i.e. the petitioner. 4. At the same time, mother of the petitioner was requested to receive the payment of self-employment grant of Rs. 75,000/-but she refused the same. She only wants service for her son i.e. the petitioner. 4. The petitioner in response has also filed rejoinder having annexed certain documents which are issued by the Public Information Officer, Subarna Rekha Multi Purpose Project, Chandil on 23.08.2010 which shows that there are 70 vacant posts available in Class-IV and 46 posts in Class-III. Other documents also annexed show that 108 posts are vacant in the office of Chief Engineer, Icha Galudih Complex, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. He has also enclosed letter dated 09.06.2010 issued under Right to Information Act-2005 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mango, Jamshedpur of the said project, which shows that there are 13 vacant posts out of total sanctioned posts of 84 in different grades. He has also enclosed the paper cutting, which shows different vacancies existing in different departments of the State. Against the Water Resources Department, the vacancies shown in the paper cutting is 3888. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should not keep the matter lingering and should take a proper decision to give appointment to the persons like the petitioner, who are fully displaced persons in the said project. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the relevant materials on records. The claim of the petitioner for seeking appointment is based upon the contention that he falls in the category of displaced person under Subarna Rekha Multi Purpose Project. The petitioner had earlier come before this court in which this Court without commenting anything on merit of the case allowed liberty to the petitioner to approach, the Administrator of the said project by way of representation with the observation to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months. From Annexure-C dated 20.03.2009, which is annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the Administrator, Subarna Rekha Multi Purpose Project, Chandil, the representation of the petitioner was considered and disposed of by passing the said order. The respondents have taken a stand that the vacancies in the department are limited and there are large number of displaced persons. From Annexure-C dated 20.03.2009, which is annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents the Administrator, Subarna Rekha Multi Purpose Project, Chandil, the representation of the petitioner was considered and disposed of by passing the said order. The respondents have taken a stand that the vacancies in the department are limited and there are large number of displaced persons. However, whenever the process of appointment is to be undertaken as per the criteria and guideline laid down, the petitioner would be given priority in the matter of consideration for such appointment. On being repeatedly asked, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any rule under which the respondents are under a statutory obligation to offer appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he is fully displaced person. The respondents have considered the representation of the petitioner and have taken a stand that there are large number of such displaced persons, but the vacancies in the said Project are limited. If, as and when, the exercise to make appointment in the department or under the Project would be undertaken, the case of the petitioner would be given priority and would be considered sympathetically. In such circumstances, therefore, in the fact, which have been discussed hereinabove, no writ of mandamus or direction can be issued to the respondent specifically for appointment of one person or the other like the petitioner being fully displaced person under the Subarna Rekha Multi Purpose Project, Chandil. However, if the respondents choose to undertake an exercise for appointment for filling vacancies in the said project, the petitioner would be conferred priority in the matter of appointment. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.