Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1804 (JHR)

Shailesh Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-10-13

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. (CAV) - The petitioners have approached this Hon''ble Court with a prayer to reinstate them in the services of class-III post under the Respondent No.5 considering the fact that they were working against the class III posts (Assistant Clerk/Correspondence clerk) since March, 2006 and without giving any notice, they were disengaged from their services for which no order was passed by the respondent authorities. Factual Matrix 2. The petitioners were working as daily wager engaged on different class III posts at different places under Jharkhand Academic Council. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they were appointed and working against class III posts (Assistant Clerk/Correspondence Clerk) since March, 2006 and without giving any notice they have been disengaged and for which no order was passed rather the petitioners came to know from daily news paper with respect to their disengagement from 27.11.2006. 4. It has been further stated that though several persons who are also engaged after the engagement of the petitioners have been allowed to continue under the respondent-authorities ignoring the claim of the petitioners on the basis of principle of ''First come last go''. 5. The petitioners filed representation before the respondents but the same was not considered and as such they moved this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S)No.2035 of 2007 challenging the order of disengagement. The Hon''ble Court vide order dated 27.04.2009 disposed of the writ application with a direction to consider the case of petitioners along with those candidates who were engaged subsequently as specified in the list in the supplementary counter-affidavit in accordance with law. It will be in the interest of justice to relax the age bar if any. The petitioners have filed several representation before the authorities on one ground or the other and also on the ground that their cases were not considered. The State of Jharkhand had not come out with any policy decision regarding recruitment of class III post and as such the petitioners again knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court by way of this writ application. 6. Mr. The State of Jharkhand had not come out with any policy decision regarding recruitment of class III post and as such the petitioners again knocked the door of this Hon''ble Court by way of this writ application. 6. Mr. Rishi Pallav, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of disengagement altogether 143 persons were working in the office of respondent No.5 and out of which 75 persons were allowed to work ignoring the fact that many of among them have been appointed after the petitioners and or along with the petitioners. Not only this, the persons less qualified than the petitioners and from outside the State of Jharkhand were also allowed to continue on the whims of the respondent-authorities. 7. Learned Counsel further submits that respondents have adopted pick and choose method for disengagement from the services. 8. Mr. Rishi Pallav, learned Counsel further argued that in spite of several orders of this Hon''ble Court the respondents have not come with any advertisement neither have taken any steps for recruitment process. 9. Learned Counsel further argued that in the affidavit dated 10.02.2016 the respondents have come out with a notification dated 05.02.2016 regarding Jharkhand Academic Council ( Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2016 and as such in view of the earlier order passed by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S)No.2035/2007 dated 27.04.2009 the respondents be directed to consider the case of petitioners expeditiously taking into account the rules framed by the respondents. 10. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 11. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the JAC vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and submits that no appointment process could have been taken as no rules was in existence. In view of the earlier order of this Hon''ble Court, the respondent-State as well as Jharkhand Academic Council have taken initiation for framing of the rules and as such when the rules have come in existence and notification has also been issued vide notification No.57 dated 5.2.2016 recruitment process will be initiated as per the direction of this Hon''ble Court dated 27.04.2009 passed in W.P.(S)No.2035 of 2007. 12. 12. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since issue involved in this case was already considered by this Hon''ble Court and a direction was already given for consideration of the case of the petitioners no fresh direction is required to be given as rules have already been framed and notification has also been issued. However, this Court directs the respondents to consider the observations and directions of this Court given in W.P. (S) No.2035/2007 dated 27.04.2009 and consider the case of petitioners taking into consideration the Jharkhand Academic Council (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2016 issued vide notification No.57 dated 05.02.2016 in accordance with law. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, observations and judicial pronouncements, this writ petition is disposed of.