Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1489 (JHR)

Ram Awatar Upadhyay v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-27

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. Relief sought for, in all the writ petitions are more or less similar and by the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment/order. 2. In W.P (s) No. 4019 of 2010, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for issuance of writ/direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith appoint them pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2010 by conducting special examination, giving weightage/priorities in terms of condition mentioned in Serial No.7 of the Advertisement No.01/2010, wherein it has been provided that the candidates should have been appointed prior to 01.08.1985 by giving weightage to the extent of 75 numbers. 3. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in W.P (s) No. 4019 of 2010, in brief is that the petitioners have been taken into services in between the year 1982-1990 and since then they have been discharging their duties without any complaint. In the year 2005, one advertisement was published. In terms of the said advertisement, all the petitioners had appeared in the examination duly conducted by the Establishment Committee of the District of Hazaribagh. The petitioners have been declared successful and the names of the petitioners prepared in the panel in the year 2005, but, due to dearth of vacancies, they have not been appointed. Again, the advertisement was issued in the year 2010 by respondent no.2 inviting applications and in pursuant to the said advertisement, all the petitioners have submitted their applications to permit them to appear in the examination but the petitioners have been deprived of appearing in examination in terms of Advertisement No.01/2010. Being aggrieved by such action, the petitioners left with no alternative and efficacious remedy have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 4. In W.P (s) No. 4047 of 2010, the petitioners 19 in numbers have inter alia prayed for issuance of writ/direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith appoint them pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2010 by conducting special examination, giving weightage/priorities in terms of condition mentioned in Serial No.7 of the Advertisement No.01/2010, wherein it has been provided that the candidates should have been appointed prior to 01.08.1985 by giving weightage to the extent of 75 numbers. 5. 5. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in W.P (s) No. 4047 of 2010, in brief is that the petitioners have been taken into services in between the year 1982-2004 and since then they have been discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. In the year 2005, an advertisement was published and in terms of advertisement, the petitioners appeared in examination duly conducted by the Establishment Committee of the District of Hazaribagh in which petitioners have been declared successful and their names appeared in the panel prepared by the Collectorate of Hazaribagh. In pursuance to Advertisement No.01 of 2010 issued by the office of the respondent no.2 whereby the applications have been invited from the desirous candidates for appointment and permit them to appear in examination, but, the petitioners have been deprived of their legitimate right from appearing in the examination. Being aggrieved by the lackadaisical attitude of the respondents, the petitioners left with no alternative and efficacious remedy have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 6. In W.P (s) No. 4897 of 2010, the petitioners 13 in numbers have inter alia prayed for issuance of writ/direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith appoint them as Class-IV employee, in view of the direction passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.2819 of 2006 in the case of Harjivan Saw and Others vide order dated 01.08.2007, in which, there is specific direction to appoint all the petitioners, whose names are in the panel and for quashing the Advertisement No.01 of 2010. 7. Sans details, the facts as delineated in W.P (s) No. 4897 of 2010, in brief is that in the year 2005 in pursuant to the advertisement published for the post of Class-IV employee in the district of Hazaribagh, panel of selected candidates were prepared in three list, and some of the selected candidates, who have not been offered appointment letter, approached this Court. It is contended in the writ application that the persons whose names were below the petitioners, were given appointment letter, and the names of the petitioners found place in the panel. But, without exhausting the panel of 2005 in which the names of the petitioners found place, the respondents have come up with advertisement No.1/2010. It is contended in the writ application that the persons whose names were below the petitioners, were given appointment letter, and the names of the petitioners found place in the panel. But, without exhausting the panel of 2005 in which the names of the petitioners found place, the respondents have come up with advertisement No.1/2010. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioners left with no alternative and efficacious remedy have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 8. In W.P (s) No. 5749 of 2010, the petitioners 8 in numbers have inter alia prayed for quashing the entire panel prepared pursuant to the advertisement No.1/2010, whereby panel has been prepared for their appointment in Class-IV post in Hazaribagh Collectorate without permitting them to appear in the examination on the plea that they have become over aged and also for direction to the respondents to conduct special examination by giving age relaxation in pursuance to the power conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh at Column No.11 of the Circular dated 18th June, 1993, and for issuance of appropriate writ to forthwith appoint them on Class-IV post. 9. Sans details, the facts as averred in W.P (s) No. 5749 of 2010, in brief is that in pursuance to advertisement in the year 2010 the petitioner applied and a panel was published in newspaper. Although as per the Cirlcular dated 18.06.1993 specific power has been conferred upon the respondents to give relaxation in age to the daily rated employees working for considerable long period and the said benefit has already been extended by giving weightage to daily rated employees and during 2005 several employees who have been employed have crossed the minimum age. Therefore, the petitioners case who have been considered for appointment by relaxing the over age, since no decision has been taken by the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court for redressal of their grievance. 10. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents repelling the contentions of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit it has been inter alia submitted that as per the vacancies communicated by the different Government Departments of Hazaribagh District, the District Level Panel Construction Committee decided to recommend the names of candidates as per merit and reservation roster. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents repelling the contentions of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit it has been inter alia submitted that as per the vacancies communicated by the different Government Departments of Hazaribagh District, the District Level Panel Construction Committee decided to recommend the names of candidates as per merit and reservation roster. It has further stated that the names of the petitioners were not recommended in any department because they were below in the merit list of the panel and after lapse of a period of three years the panel was cancelled since the validity period of panel is only year. After cancellation of panel of the year 2005, the present vacancies up to 2009 have been demanded by the District Administration from the different Departments of Hazaribagh District to prepare a fresh panel and in the light of the vacancies report by the different departments of the District Level Panel Construction Committee advertise through the Employment Exchange Office, Hazaribagh vide advertisement no.01/2010. It is further submitted that in the Condition No.12 of the said advertisement age limitation on 01.01.2010 was quoted as below : I. General Category -18 to 35 yrs. II. Backward Class/OBC -18 to 37 yrs. III. Female (Gen/OBC) - 18 to 38 yrs. IV. SC and ST - 18 to 40 yrs. As per Condition No.7 of the said advertisement it was also decided to give weightage to the daily wagers whose names were in the panel on or before 01.08.1985, 75 marks and thereafter from 01.08.1986 onwards 3 marks less for every year. It is further submitted that after receipt of the petitions from District Employment Officer, Hazaribagh, scrutiny was made and a list of eligible candidates was prepared and Admit Cards were issued to them for written test held on 08.08.2010. Since the petitioner was over aged as per the condition of the advertisement and Government circulars admit cards were not issued to them for appearing in written test. It has further been submitted that in condition no.12 of Advertisement No.01/2010 age limit has been fixed for all the candidates including the casual workers category wise as per the Government circulars. 11. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as M/s D.K. Dubey (Sr. S.C.I), Ravi Kumar & S.B. Haque appearing for the respondents. 12. 11. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as M/s D.K. Dubey (Sr. S.C.I), Ravi Kumar & S.B. Haque appearing for the respondents. 12. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the supplementary affidavit dated 26.08.2015 submitted that petitioners have been discharging their duties as casual/daily wagers in the different departments under the Hazaribag Collectorate and they were anticipating that in future if any vacancies will occur, they will be regularized. During pendency of the writ application, a notification has been published by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand vide notification No.1348 dated 13.02.2015 whereby the State of Jharkhand has adopted a policy to regularize all those, who have been working on daily wages for 10 years or more up till cut of date i.e. 10.04.2006 as has been specified in the notification itself and the said notification has been issued pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma devi (3) & Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and also pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L Keshri & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 . Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered under the aforesaid notification. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has dexterously urged before this Court that the petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications have been working as daily wagers and some of the petitioners as non-daily wagers for more than 10 years and the case of the petitioners ought to be considered in the light of the notification dated 13.02.2015. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents with usual fairness have no serious objection, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions vide notification No.1348 dated 13.02.2015 published by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. 15. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents with usual fairness have no serious objection, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions vide notification No.1348 dated 13.02.2015 published by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand. 15. In view of the submissions made by the respective parties and without delving into the merit of the matter, all the writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the Notification No.1348 dated 13.02.2015 published by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand for regularization of their services taking into account the uninterrupted services rendered by them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 16. With the aforesaid direction, all the aforesaid writ petitions stand disposed of. Petition disposed of.