Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1200 (JHR)

Dhirendra Nath Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-19

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing the panel dated 09.04.2007 (Annexure-15) with regard to filling up 31 posts of Class-IV posts as per the advertisement published in the newspaper dated 20.07.2005. The petitioners have further prayed for a direction on the respondents to appoint/regularize the services of the petitioners on regular basis as they have been working on daily wages. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ petition in a nutshell, is that the petitioners have challenged the panel prepared by the respondents on the ground that the same has been prepared by including (a) the names of dead persons, (b) the persons, who are permanent residents of Bihar and (c) the persons belonging to other districts and(d) without interview, cycle riding test and without constitution of a proper Selection Committee, the panel has been prepared. 3. Controverting the averment made in this writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, wherein it has been, inter alia, submitted that the name of petitioner No. 1 could not be included in the panel due to over age as per Government criteria. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, his name has been included in the said panel and has been appointed by Joint Agriculture Director, Dumka and he is posted in Block office Taljhari within the district of Sahibganj. So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, his name could not be included in the said panel because he did not possess the requisite qualification, not having passed even Class-VIII examination. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned J.C. to AAG. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there has been irregularities committed by the respondents so far as preparation of the panel is concerned and the entire selection process is vitiated. Therefore, this is a matter, which warrants judicial interference. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contested this writ petition on the ground that since petitioner nos. 1 & 3 have taken part in the selection process and remained unsuccessful, they are estopped from challenging the selection process. 7. Therefore, this is a matter, which warrants judicial interference. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has contested this writ petition on the ground that since petitioner nos. 1 & 3 have taken part in the selection process and remained unsuccessful, they are estopped from challenging the selection process. 7. After giving my anxious consideration to the submission made by the parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons: It is a settled position of law that one having participated in the selection process and remained unsuccessful, can not challenge the selection process on the ground that the same has been vitiated and there has been irregularities committed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to make out a case for interference that the petitioners have been subjected to discrimination or any irregularity has been committed by the Selection Committee. The averments made in the counter affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioners. Since there is no material before this Court to hold that there is irregularity in preparing the panel or following the criteria laid down by the Government, the selection panel cannot be disturbed at this distinct of time. Moreover, one decade has elapsed from the date of selection of the panel. 8. In view of aforesaid reason, there is no ground to interfere with the selection panel. Hence, this writ petition sans merit is dismissed.