Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 25 (JHR)

Pawan Kumar Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-04

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. - I.A. No. 6647 of 2016 Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 41 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel for the both sides and looking to the reason stated in the interlocutory application, in paragraph No. 2, it appears that there is a reasonable ground for condonation of delay. 3. We, therefore, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent, Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6647 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 766 of 2015 4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 6383 of 2013, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 6th October, 2015 and against this order this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. 5. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and Looking to the order dated 1stst September, 2012 (Annexure-11 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad it appears that this Appellant (Original petitioner), who applied for appointment on the post of Class IV employee in pursuance of the public advertisement dated 28thth October, 2005, had not cleared the written test and hence his name was not incorporated in the select list prepared in the year 2006-07 and hence, he can not be appointed as a class IV employee. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 6383 of 2013 and we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge. 6. It further appears from the facts of the case that public advertisement was dated 28th October, 2005. Panel of the selected candidates was prepared in the year 2006-07 and as per letter/circular/order dated 25thth April, 1997 of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, State of Bihar, such panel is valid only for one year. Thus, assuming without admitting that this appellant (original petitioner) is forming part of the select list, in that eventuality also, no appointment can be given after more than five years after the the select list is prepared as the writ petition was preferred in the year 2013 challenging the order dated 1st September, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. Thus, assuming without admitting that this appellant (original petitioner) is forming part of the select list, in that eventuality also, no appointment can be given after more than five years after the the select list is prepared as the writ petition was preferred in the year 2013 challenging the order dated 1st September, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The select list prepared in the year 2006-07 can not be used as a reservoir for all time to come till the said select list is exhausted. Future vacancies cannot be filled up from the select list of year 2006-07. It ought to be kept in mind that if the advertisement was given for 100 posts and if the selection list prepared includes the name of 110 persons, then first 100 candidates are known as candidates in the select list and the rest 10 persons are said to be in the waiting list. If any selected candidate out of 100 in the aforesaid select list does not join the duty or expires immediately after joining or resigns immediately after joining the duty or abandons the job immediately after joining, in that eventuality, waiting list can be operated and that too within a specified period. Such period of the validity of the waiting list may be of one year or two years, but, in no circumstances such type of select list or waiting list can be operated after half a dozen of years for future vacancies, meaning thereby that if for a subsequent year there are vacancies in five posts, in that eventuality also earlier year''s waiting list of 10 candidates, cannot be made operative, because the said waiting list was meant for the posts which were advertised for that particular year and not for future vacancies of the next years. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is not substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the W.P.(S) No. 6383 of 2013 vide Order dated 6th October, 2015. 8. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.