Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 777 (JHR)

Pradeep Karan Siddharth v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-04

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Alleging wide-spread irregularities committed in the 5th Jharkhand Public Service Examination, the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed. Though, several orders have been passed by this Court during the pendency of the present Public Interest Litigation, the core question remained whether the present writ petition is really espousing a public cause or whether the individual candidates may seek redressal of their grievances in appropriate proceeding. 2. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned AAG raised a question of maintainability of the present petition on the ground that a Public Interest Litigation involving a service matter is not maintainable. However, Mr. Kumar Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the larger question raised by the petitioner is viability of examination through OMR system and wholesale rejection of meritorious candidates on hyper technical issue. 3. To satisfy ourselves, we issued direction to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to upload OMR Answer-sheets along with aggregate marks secured by the individual candidates, which direction has duly been complied with. 4. Finally, what turns out against the petitioner is absence of foundational facts in the writ petition and the fact that the petitioner has failed to disclose irregularities committed during evaluation of the OMR Answer-sheets. Few mistakes even if committed during the evaluation of OMR Answer-sheets would not be sufficient to invite indulgence of the Court in the present proceeding. The individual candidates have sufficient recourse to law for redressal of their grievances, if any. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the issue of implementation of reservation under Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The learned counsel for the intervenor (I.A. No. 1622 of 2016) also supported the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned AAG, on instructions, submitted that the Government has agreed that suitable relaxation shall be extended to all such candidates who appeared in the 4th and 5th Jharkhand Public Service Examination, so as to permit them to appear in the 6th Jharkhand Public Service Examination. 7. 6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned AAG, on instructions, submitted that the Government has agreed that suitable relaxation shall be extended to all such candidates who appeared in the 4th and 5th Jharkhand Public Service Examination, so as to permit them to appear in the 6th Jharkhand Public Service Examination. 7. Let a corrigendum in this regard be issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for the 6th Jharkhand Public Service Examination within a period of four weeks and reasonable time be granted to all such persons for submitting their applications. 8. It is again made clear that reservation under Section 33 of the Disability Act, 1995 shall be calculated on the basis of Cadre strength and in the light of the judgment dated 09.03.2016 passed in passed in WP(PIL) No. 7525 of 2013 (Arun Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.). In the said case this Court has held as under :- “13. Considering the provisions under the Disabilities Act, 1995 and the judgment in “National Federation of the Blind” (supra), it is hereby declared that reservation for differently-abled persons shall be decided on the basis of total cadre strength and, it would be implemented to total number of vacancies advertised. For example, if only 20 vacancies against total cadre strength of 100 posts have been advertised, one post may be kept reserved for any one of the three categories of disabilities mentioned in Section 33, if a post can be identified for extending benefit of reservation to such category of persons. In the event no post from roster point number 1 to 20 can be identified, one vacancy from roster point number 1 to 33 must be kept reserved for any one of the three categories of disabilities in tune with Section 33. However, at this point also if no post is identifiable for any one of the three categories of disabilities, from roster point number 33 to 67 two posts shall be kept reserved, and similarly, again reservation in roster point number 34 to 67 and roster point number 68 to 100 has to be implemented. The reservation under Section 33 is distinct from the scheme of reservation for SC/ST/OBC etc. in as much as, reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal and that precisely is the reason why vacancy occurring in the roster at roster point nos. The reservation under Section 33 is distinct from the scheme of reservation for SC/ST/OBC etc. in as much as, reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal and that precisely is the reason why vacancy occurring in the roster at roster point nos. 1 to 33, 34 to 37, 68 to 100 are available for appointment of suitable persons with disabilities. In any event all Establishments have to ensure reservation of minimum 3% for differently-abled persons as indicated in Section 33 of the Disabilities Act, 1995. 14. We however, clarify that once any one of the posts from roster point number 1 to 33 is kept reserved, another vacancy shall be reserved only from roster point number 34 to 67. The number of vacancies advertised shall not be a disability for not extending benefit under Section 33 to the person/persons belonging to any one of the three categories mentioned in Section 33. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand that vacancies at roster point number 33, 67 and 100 alone are available for appointment for differently-abled persons.” 9. However, it is made clear that the direction passed in the said Public Interest Litigation to compute the number of vacancy and to identify the post of disabled persons within a period of 3 months shall not stall the further process under the 6th Jharkhand Public Service Examination. It is further made clear that the total number of backlog vacancies for which posts have to be reserved under the 6th Jharkhand Public Service Examination may be notified subsequently, if not done immediately. It is also made clear that the circular dated 07.11.2007 shall not be implemented any further, more particularly on a pretext that the same has yet not been modified by the State Government. 10. We, hereby, fix the responsibility upon the Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand to ensure that the directions issued by this Court in WP(PIL) No. 7525 of 2013 read with the present Public Interest Litigation are strictly complied with by the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, both. 11. In the result, we decline to grant further indulgence in the matter and the writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. 11. In the result, we decline to grant further indulgence in the matter and the writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 12. Interim order dated 16.03.2016 stands vacated. Petitioner disposed of.