Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1112 (JHR)

Sadhan Chandra Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-21

H.C.MISHRA

body2016
ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner was earlier appointed in the year 1989 on ad-hoc basis in the Frozen Semen Bank Project, Ranchi. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner and the similarly situated other employees appointed between the year 1988-92, were terminated. Some of those employees approached the High Court seeking for direction of their appointments, but they were unsuccessful. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Apex Court disposed of the matter by directing that though the ad-hoc appointees had no right to claim regularization of their services, but the respondent State was directed to constitute a Selection Committee as per the existing Rules for being re-appointed or regularization of their services. The petitioner and the other similarly situated persons also approached the High Court, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Apex Court and they prayed for the similar relief, which was not be granted by this Court, in view of the fact that it was stated in the earlier order passed by the Apex Court that the case shall not be treated as precedent, as it was decided purely in the facts and in peculiar circumstances of that case. The petitioner and the other similarly situated persons also preferred Civil Appeal No. 2018 of 2006 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was finally disposed of by order dated 10.4.2006 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, in which, all the aforementioned facts find mentioned. 3. By the said order, the respondent State was directed to advertise vacancies in local newspapers having wide circulation, which were to be filled up by direct appointment, giving some preference to those ad-hoc employees who were appointed in the Frozen Semen Bank Project between the year 1988-92 and whose services were terminated in the year 1998, and the directions were given to fill up the existing vacancies only. One interlocutory application also filed in the said Civil Appeal No.2018 of 2006, which was also disposed of by certain directions by order dated 04.05.2011. 4. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble apex Court, an advertisement was issued by the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department of the State Government as contained in Annexure-2, bearing advertisement No.1 of 2006. One interlocutory application also filed in the said Civil Appeal No.2018 of 2006, which was also disposed of by certain directions by order dated 04.05.2011. 4. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble apex Court, an advertisement was issued by the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department of the State Government as contained in Annexure-2, bearing advertisement No.1 of 2006. The petitioner appeared in the selection process pursuant to the said advertisement and the panel was prepared, in which, the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.51. The petitioner secured 182.75 marks, but the petitioner could not be appointed on the post as no vacancy was left in unreserved category and accordingly, the petitioner was not recommended for appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the denial of appointment to the petitioner is absolutely illegal and on a false ground, inasmuch as, the vacancies are still there. It is submitted that the petitioner has obtained the information under the Right to Information Act, which was made available to him by letter dated 13.5.2016 as contained in Annexure-11 to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the State. The petitioner had sought information as to how many direct recruitments were made between 2005 to 2011 and how many appointments are still to be made. The petitioner was informed that during the said period 136 appointments were made and 53 posts were vacant. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that 53 posts are available and accordingly, the petitioner ought to have been appointed on the vacant post. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has pointed out from the counter affidavit that the total sanctioned strength of Technical Assistants is 400, out of which, only 145 Technical Assistants are working. Out of 400 Technical Assistant posts, 200 posts are for direct appointment and 200 posts are for promotion. Out of 200 posts of direct appointment, only 50%, i.e., 100 posts are of unreserved category 100 posts are for reserved category. Learned counsel has also pointed out from the counter affidavit that for the subsequent vacancies, fresh process for appointment has already been initiated and the advertisement has already been issued. Out of 200 posts of direct appointment, only 50%, i.e., 100 posts are of unreserved category 100 posts are for reserved category. Learned counsel has also pointed out from the counter affidavit that for the subsequent vacancies, fresh process for appointment has already been initiated and the advertisement has already been issued. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that not a single candidate in the unreserved category, who secured lesser marks than the petitioner, was appointed pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2006. 7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that there is nothing in the record to show that 53 posts that remained unfilled, as per the information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, belonged to unreserved category. It is the specific stand of the respondent State that the process of appointment pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2006 in which the petitioner had applied, is already closed and fresh advertisement has already been issued for filling up the subsequent vacancies. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that no candidate securing lesser marks than the petitioner, was appointed in the unreserved category, and this fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, no case is made out for issuing any direction for appointment of the petitioner from the panel prepared pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2006, the life of which has already expired. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.