Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2200 (JHR)

Shikha Khakha v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-12-19

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to follow hundred point roster in appointment of Headmaster pursuant to recruitment procedure and recommendation of JPSC, which has not been followed up. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint her against the reserved and vacant post of Headmaster under the Scheduled Tribes category. 3. The facts of the case as has been delineated in the writ petition is that pursuant to advertisement notice no. 15/2006 inviting application for appointment of Head Master in Government High School, petitioner and others applied for the post of Head Master. It is case of the petitioner that she qualified in the examination and her name appeared in the list of successful candidates published on 21.02.2008 and, thereafter, she was called for counselling and for verification of her certificates. Petitioner duly appeared in the counselling and thereafter merit list was prepared and recommended to respondent no. 2 for appointment. It is case of the petitioner that out of the said revised merit list, persons from different categories had been given appointment as Head Master in Government High School but not a single candidates from the Scheduled Tribes Category have been appointed though 17 names had been recommended from the said category. Petitioner''s name appeared at serial no. 3 in the revised category. It is further case of the petitioner that hundred point roster in terms of Jharkhand Reservation of vacancies/post for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes has been fixed by the Government vide Notification no. 6329, dated 20.11.2003 even then the RC respondents are not following the same. It is further contended that the respondents are also not following the resolution no. 3169, dated 05.11.2004, which speaks about reservation from the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste category. It is further case of the petitioner that her name also appears at serial no. 32 in the common list prepared in W.P.(S) No. 301 of 2009. It is further contended that there were 257 vacancies in the year 2006 and still most of the seats are lying vacant. Petitioner has already completed more than 20 years of service as an Assistant Teacher. 4. Mr. 32 in the common list prepared in W.P.(S) No. 301 of 2009. It is further contended that there were 257 vacancies in the year 2006 and still most of the seats are lying vacant. Petitioner has already completed more than 20 years of service as an Assistant Teacher. 4. Mr. M.L.K. Chitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court and vide order dated 23.08.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 208 of 2014 along with other analogous cases, direction was given to the respondents authorities to appoint the petitioner therein to the post of Headmaster in accordance with law irrespective of pendency of L.P.A. No. 323 of 2008 taking into account the fact that name of the petitioners therein were found in both the lists i.e. 1st list as well as in the revised list and further some candidates below the petitioners therein from the said panel had also been appointed. The respondents were directed to comply order positively within a period of three months from said day. Learned counsel further argues that similar order may be passed in the instant case as petitioner''s name also figures in the revised list as well as the 1st list. 5. Per contra, no counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents-JPSC and Mr. Raunak Sahay appears on behalf of the respondents-State. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-JPSC as well as respondents-State very fairly submits that if petitioner files a fresh representation, reasoned order will be passed on her representation taking into consideration order passed by this Court on 23.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 208 of 2014 and other analogous cases and if case of the petitioner is found similar to the petitioners in those cases, similar order will be passed in the case of the petitioner herein. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that already issue has been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 208 of 2014 and other analogous cases. Since no decision has been taken in case of the petitioner, the respondent no. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that already issue has been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 208 of 2014 and other analogous cases. Since no decision has been taken in case of the petitioner, the respondent no. 2-RC Director, School Education and Literacy Department (Secondary Education), Government of Jharkhand is directed to consider case of the petitioner and if petitioner is found entitled for the relief granted to petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 208 of 2014 and other analogous cases, the same shall be extended to her also. However, if case of the petitioner is not covered by the order passed in said writ petition, a reasoned order may be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner regarding grounds of rejection. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.