Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 459 (JHR)

Keshav Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-02

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. – Claiming themselves eligible in all respects, the petitioners seek a direction for their appointment on the post of Multi Purpose Workers (Male). 2. Heard. 3. The petitioners were previously appointed on contractual basis as Multi Purpose Workers (Male) pursuant to an advertisement issued on 12.04.2013. Their contractual period ended on 30.09.2014, at the end of one year. They are applicants for appointment on the said post for which another advertisement vide Advertisement No. 13 of 2015 was issued on 22.12.2015. Under the advertisement essential qualifications for appointment as Multipurpose Workers (Male) are ; (i) Intermediate (Science)/10+2 (Science) with 45% marks, and (ii) One year''s experience as Multi Purpose Workers (Male) under Government of Jharkhand, and (iii) Minimum age prescribed is 18 years and maximum age as 45 years as on 01.08.2015. 4. The petitioners qualify for all the aforesaid qualifications except, one year''s experience, as pleaded by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have pleaded as under : 16. "That most humbly and respectfully it is stated and submitted that vide memo no. 91 (D) dated 12.04.2016 the chart was prepared which shows ''list of not eligible candidate for the post of MPW(M)'' in which the name of the petitioners appeared that they have not been eligible due to experience less that one year." 5. In support of their claim the petitioners have produced certificates issued by District VBD Officer, District Rural Health Society (Malaria Control Programme) to the effect that they worked for one year. By way of a rejoinder affidavit, the petitioners have produced statement of their bank accounts to plead that they all have been paid honorarium for 12 months. 6. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that on examination of payment bills/treasury bills etc. when it was found that these persons were paid honorarium for less than one year, they were held ineligible. Letter written to one Amit Diwakar would disclose that a show cause notice has been issued to him for cancellation of his appointment on the ground that he has been paid honorarium only from 07.10.2013 and thus, he has not acquired one year''s experience. At this stage itself it needs to be mentioned that a show-cause notice was issued to the said Amit Diwakar only after this Court permitted the State on 04.08.2016 to file a counter-affidavit in the matter. At this stage itself it needs to be mentioned that a show-cause notice was issued to the said Amit Diwakar only after this Court permitted the State on 04.08.2016 to file a counter-affidavit in the matter. In the writ petition the petitioners have sought parity with Amit Diwakar. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 31.01.2017. Leaving aside this issue, what appears to be an admitted position is, that the petitioners have also been denied appointment on a similar ground. 7. The petitioners have pleaded that they were directed to give joining on or before 07.10.2013, by an office order dated 18.09.2013 and they all have tendered their joining on or before 01.10.2013. They have pleaded relevant dates in a tabular chart in paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition. These facts have not been denied or disputed by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. Agreements for their contractual appointment were, however, executed on 7/9.10.2013 and they have been paid honorarium from that date. 8. Now, the issue which calls for consideration is, whether the petitioners possess the requisite one year''s experience or not. Besides the fact that their date of joining on or before 01.10.2013 has not been denied by the respondents and the petitioners have been found ineligible only for the reason that they were paid honorarium for the period between 07/09.10.2013, when an agreement for their contractual appointment was signed, to 30.09.2014, the experience certificate issued by the competent authority now assumes significance. Can it be said that one can have one year''s experience only if he had worked on "all working days" in a year. Can one seek leave for few days or not? If a regular employee is treated in continuous service, irrespective of leave availed by him, why a contractual employee also cannot be extended such a benefit. In fact, this is not a case of absence from duty rather, this is a case of delay in execution of the agreement, for which the respondents have not blamed the petitioners. On the contrary, the petitioners have alleged delay on the part of the respondents. In the circumstances, in my opinion, a purposive construction of the eligibility criteria of one year''s experience is called for. In the aforesaid facts, declining appointment to the petitioners taking a hypertechnical plea that they have not worked for one year, must be held improper. 9. On the contrary, the petitioners have alleged delay on the part of the respondents. In the circumstances, in my opinion, a purposive construction of the eligibility criteria of one year''s experience is called for. In the aforesaid facts, declining appointment to the petitioners taking a hypertechnical plea that they have not worked for one year, must be held improper. 9. In my opinion, the petitioners have requisite one year''s experience for appointment as Multi Purpose Workers (Male). Consequently, a direction is issued to the Director-in-Chief, Directorate of Health Services, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare-respondent no. 2 to verify the records pertaining to the petitioners and if there is no other infirmity in their candidature, appoint them on the post of Multi Purpose Workers (Male). 10. The writ petition stands allowed.