Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 401 (JHR)

Sudhir Chandra Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These six petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to appoint them in Grade-IV post in East Sinbhum district under advertisement no. 35/05 dated 21.12.2005. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that they being the member of the Scheduled Tribe community, participated in the exercise conducted vide Adv. No. 35/05 for appointment to Class-IV posts and they were called for verification of their certificates also. Further, though the posts were available, but petitioners have not been appointed. It has been further alleged that the individual petitioners fetched different marks and maximum up to 208 marks was obtained by petitioner nos. 5 and 6 and rest of them obtained lesser marks then that. The respondents, however, granted grace marks to certain candidates who were appointed, in illegal manner. Petitioners have also stated in para-25 that certain persons who got lesser marks such as 156, 166 and 172 have been appointed while petitioners have been discriminated. They have also alleged that the persons from different districts have been appointed contrary to the policies for appointment on Class-IV post in a particular district. Therefore, the petitioners deserve to be appointed on Class-IV posts. 4. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, some of these petitioners got maximum of 208 marks in the merit lists of Scheduled Tribe category. Though, persons who got 208 marks, have been appointed, but as per Clause-6 of the advertisement, priority has been given to those candidates, who are aged than others and since the age of the petitioners are less than the appointed candidates, they have not been appointed. In reply to the contention of para-25 of the writ petition, they have specifically stated that all the five candidate who were appointed, are disabled persons in disabled category and they have obtained 156 marks. These petitioners do not come in the disabled category. It has been further stated that the exercise was conducted under the advertisement no. 35/05 upon direction passed by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 2190 of 2005. As per the direction contained in the said judgment, grace marks were to be given only to daily wage employees, who were already engaged and not to any one else. It has been further stated that life of a panel is only for one year. 35/05 upon direction passed by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 2190 of 2005. As per the direction contained in the said judgment, grace marks were to be given only to daily wage employees, who were already engaged and not to any one else. It has been further stated that life of a panel is only for one year. The call letters dated 07.06.2007 and 24.07.2007 were only for verification of their certificates. The said call letter should not be treated as appointment letter. In such circumstances, according to the respondents, the petitioners have not been able to make out a case of discrimination in the matter of exercise conducted for appointment under the said advertisement in which they participated as Scheduled Tribe Candidates. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated his submissions and submitted that the respondents were obliged to fill up the available vacancies under the said advertisement which they have failed to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their aforesaid contention relied upon, Annexure-2 being the minutes of the meeting dated 15.05.2007 stating that the all available vacancies were not filled up from the said quota. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on records. Under the Adv. No. 35/05, which was conducted pursuant to the direction passed in W. P. (S) No. 2190 of 2005 by the respondents for filling up the posts of Class-IV in the district of East Singhbhum, the petitioners participated as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category. Apparently, the marks fetched by the individual petitioners are 172, 206 and 208 and from the submission made in the counter affidavit, it is apparent that in the scheduled caste category, the cut off marks for the last appointed candidates is 208 marks and the petitioners being lesser in age than the other candidates having the same marks, have not been appointed on the basis of principle contained in clause-6 of the said advertisement wherein it has been stipulated that in case of equal marks, those who are elder in age, shall be appointed. The action of the respondent on that count, cannot be faulted. The action of the respondent on that count, cannot be faulted. The contention of the petitioners that those persons who have fetched lesser marks, have been appointed, have also been refuted by the respondents at para-28 of their counter affidavit stating that all those five persons who have been appointed, have got 156 marks, belong to the disabled category. The petitioners do not come in the disabled category. The contention of the petitioners that the vacancies were available as per the resolution contained at Annexure-2 dated 15.05.2007, has also been replied in para-12 of the counter affidavit stating that the vacancies position as indicated in the said letter was not final and the exact position has been determined in the meeting held on 06.03.2010, which is at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. In any case, no one junior to the petitioners in the same merit list have been appointed. Apparently, these petitioners have failed to make out a case that any persons in their category with lower marks have been appointed. The petitioners cannot, in such circumstances, seek issuance of mandamus for filling up any further vacancies, if at all, available out of the same panel prepared in the year 2005-06, since, they have failed to make out a case that they have been discriminated by appointing any person with lesser marks in the same category. In any case such a panel cannot be said to be a endless reservoir from which anyone can claim appointment at any length of time. Originally, the life of a panel is of one year, unless it is extended by specific direction or operation of any Rule. 7. In the instant case, the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2011 when an exercise conducted to appoint person on Grade-IV post under the said advertisement has already been over. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for issuance of any direction upon the respondents to appoint them on Class-IV posts in the district of East Singhbhum on the strength of their claim that they have participated under the adv. no. 35/05 issued by the respondents. Therefore this writ petition being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed.