Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1650 (JHR)

Manjula Karketta v. State of Jharkhand

2017-09-13

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : S.N. Pathak, J. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not relying on page-38 Annexure-2 at present. As defects are pointed out, relying on page-38 and 39 is ignored for present. 2. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for conferring benefits of pension, membership of subscription to General Provident Fund and other benefits at par with their Juniors and equals in the merit list published by the JPSC through a written test for Primary Trained Teachers Recruitment Examination 2002 held in 2003 and merit list published and communicated to the respondents vide result published in newspaper dated 14/11/2003 recommending to the respondents for appointment of successful candidates as per the merit list published by JPSC. Further prayer has been made to confer presumptive appointment to the petitioners with effect from the date i.e. 22.12.2003 on which juniors and equals in the merit list were given appointment in the post of Assistant Teachers ignoring the merit list published by the JPSC and also for a direction to the respondents to confer upon petitioners inter-se-seniority strictly on the basis of the merit list published by the JPSC and the petitioners be ranked senior to their juniors who have been given appointment prior to the petitioner. Factual Matrix: 3. The respondents have issued an advertisement for appointment of Primary Trained Teachers and invited application from the interested candidates. Petitioners having requisite qualifications appeared in the Exam which was held in the year 2003 and were declared successful, petitioner No. 1 securing Rank-33 (ST) and petitioner No. 2, Rank-17 (ST) in the merit list published by the JPSC in the Dhanbad Division. Respondent No. 5 has called all the successful candidates in his office for verification of their educational documents and petitioners have appeared before respondent No. 5 and submitted photocopy of all of their educational documents on 22.11.2003. The respondent No. 5 has published the first appointment letter dated 22.12.2003 in which appointment was given to 211 candidates but petitioners were not given appointment in the first appointment letter, although in the same appointment letter the appointment was given to the those candidates who were below in rank from the petitioners. The respondent No. 5 has published the first appointment letter dated 22.12.2003 in which appointment was given to 211 candidates but petitioners were not given appointment in the first appointment letter, although in the same appointment letter the appointment was given to the those candidates who were below in rank from the petitioners. The petitioners made representation before the respondent authorities, then a meeting was conducted and they have been assured that appointment will be given shortly and reason assigned by the respondent No. 5 that documents of petitioners were sent for verification and yet their educational documents have not been verified. The respondent No. 2 issued direction vide letter No. 404 dated 16/02/2004 that those candidates who have passed B.Ed from the B.N. Mandal University, Magadh University, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, MDU, Rohtak, Burdawan University, West Bengal and V.B.S, Purvanchal University, Jaunpur should be given appointment only after verification of their educational documents but in the first appointment letter, appointments have been given to the candidate of Magadh University without verification of their educational documents and same also reveals from the letter dated 22/03/2004 written by the Dist. Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad wherein request made by the Dist. Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad from the examination controller of Magadh University to verify educational documents of some of the candidates who have been given appointment without verification of their educational documents. Thereafter second and third appointment letters were issued from time to time in which appointment has been given to other candidates but petitioners were not given appointment. It is pertinent to the juniors to the petitioners as well as to the other candidates who have passed from the Magadh University but petitioners were not given appointment. 4. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued on 06.05.2005 in which appointment has been given to the petitioners and respondents have delayed the appointment of the petitioners without any reasonable cause due to which the petitioners lost their legitimate rights of seniority, G.P.F. and pensionary benefits. Further the respondents have issued a notification on 09/12/2004 with cutoff date 01/12/2004 that those candidates who have been appointed after 01/12/2004 would not be entitled for pensionary benefits, G.P.F. membership etc. 5. Mr. Further the respondents have issued a notification on 09/12/2004 with cutoff date 01/12/2004 that those candidates who have been appointed after 01/12/2004 would not be entitled for pensionary benefits, G.P.F. membership etc. 5. Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Hon'ble Court has already disposed of several matters regarding the issues raised in this writ petition and suffice it would be if the pending writ petition of the petitioners be disposed of in view of the order dated 05.07.2017 and 16.08.2017 passed in W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017. The learned counsel submits that as the issues are same and similar the pending writ petition should also be disposed of. Learned counsel further submits that similar issues went up to the Apex Court and was duly affirmed and similar views were also expressed in W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017. 6. Per contra, no counter affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Chandra Prabha, SC IV, learned counsel appearing for the State argues that already this court has taken view of the issues involved in this case and the writ petition has been disposed of in W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P. (S). No. 2497 of 2017. If the petitioners prefers a fresh representation the same will be disposed of in view of the earlier aforesaid cases. 7. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that issues involved in this writ petition is same and similar to those of W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017, I hereby direct the respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the fresh representation, if preferred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. If the petitioner prefers a fresh representation the respondent authorities the respondent-authorities will consider the orders passed in W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017 and if the issues are same and similar the benefits extended in the aforesaid writ petitions be also extended to the present petitioners within a further period of four weeks. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.