Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1563 (JHR)

Kailash Lakra v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-30

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioners have sought for direction on the respondent No. 4 to appoint them on Class-IV posts for which they have been duly selected in the written test held on 16.04.2006 and their names also appeared in the panel prepared for the purpose of appointment on Class-IV posts in the Scheduled Tribe category. 2. The brief fact, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that in pursuance of Advertisement published on 10.10.2005, the petitioners applied for appointment on Class-IV posts. They were called for appearing in written test held on 16.04.2006 and the select list was published on 13.07.2006. The petitioners were declared successful in the said select list, but the appointment letter have not been issued by the respondents till date. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have adopted pick and choose method in making the appointments. Though the respondents have appointed some of the persons whose name appeared in the panel, they have discriminated the petitioners. The respondents are not taking steps for filling up the post, which are lying vacant and for the purpose of which the panel was prepared. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that still there are vacancies in the different departments, but the respondents are not making appointments out of the panel prepared for that purpose. The petitioners shall be put to suffer great prejudice, if the existing vacancies are not filled up by appointing the petitioners. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, wherein it has been submitted that the panel list for appointment of IVth grade post was prepared according to the guideline and resolution made by the Government. The action of the State-respondents is not illegal, unjust or against the law or based on pick and choose policy. It has been further submitted that the panel list prepared for appointment of IVth grade post was valid for only one year as per letter dated 03.12.1980 issued by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, as is evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has been further submitted that in pursuance of direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents held a meeting of the District Establishment Committee to decide the matter of appointment on IVth grade post and consequently, an advertisement was published. It has been further submitted that in pursuance of direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the respondents held a meeting of the District Establishment Committee to decide the matter of appointment on IVth grade post and consequently, an advertisement was published. The petitioners and others appeared in the written test, but the names of the petitioners did not appear in the merit list, suitable candidates according to the approved roster were not available and hence the petitioners were not appointed and no pick and choose method has been adopted in making such appointments. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court is of the considered view that the panel list for appointment of IVth grade post was prepared according to the guideline and resolution made by the Government and it was valid for only one year and in the meantime, more than ten years have elapsed and the case of the petitioner has not been considered. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioners, in view of paragraphs-9 & 10 to the counter affidavit. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file representation before the concerned respondents. Petition dismissed.