Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1454 (JHR)

Beni Lal Rajak v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two petitioners are apparently in the substantive cadre of Accountant in the Jharkhand Agricultural Marketing Board. Office Order relating to grant of MACP bearing No. 484 dated 27.08.2014 enclosed to the writ petition is the main document which petitioners have enclosed to show their substantive post. Representation on behalf of the petitioners also go to show that they are working on the substantive post of Accountant. They are laying a challenge to the appointment of Controller on contractual basis undertaken through the advertisement issued by the Respondent Board contained at Annexure-2 on the grounds that the Jharkhand Agriculture Marketing Board Staff Service Rules, 2014 (Part of Annexure-1) clearly lay down that the post of Controller is to be filled up 100% on promotion from the feeder post of Chief Accounts Officer, for which knowledge of computer is mandatory. This impugned Notification has been issued contrary to the rules in order to fill up the post of Controller. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board makes a categorical statement also relying upon Annexure-1 letter dated 01.08.2014 bearing no. 2062 of the Respondent No. 4 - Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agricultural Marketing Board addressed to the Respondent No. 2 - the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Govt. of Jharkhand that the rules are not yet notified and may be in the process of consideration. Rules enclosed by the petitioners are draft rules only. Therefore, no locus-standi lies with the petitioners to challenge the same, moreover when the Agricultural Marketing Board has undergone substantive structural and functional changes in view of the amendments made to the original Act recently. The proposed recruitment exercise has, in all exigency, intended to fill up the post of Controller on contractual basis which the petitioners cannot legally oppose at this stage. 4. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and relevant material facts pleaded, it can be safely concluded that the challenge to the recruitment of Controller through the impugned advertisement is not based upon the legal right sought to be created under a Rule of 2014 which is yet to see the light of the day. 4. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and relevant material facts pleaded, it can be safely concluded that the challenge to the recruitment of Controller through the impugned advertisement is not based upon the legal right sought to be created under a Rule of 2014 which is yet to see the light of the day. If the rules is not notified, petitioners who are not in the next lower post of Chief Accounts Officer or even Accounts Officer, but are working as Accountant under the Respondent Board, cannot have a legally tenable right to challenge the recruitment process being undertaken, may be on contractual basis in the exigency of work, by the respondent Board. 5. In that view of the matter, no interference is required in the impugned exercise of recruitment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.