Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1745 (JHR)

Chando Ram v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-06

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, whereby, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services without considering the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 4508 of 2010. Petitioners have further prayed that after quashment of the impugned order, their cases may be considered for regularization after exempting the age bar in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have been given the benefits of exemption from age bar. It has also been prayed by the petitioners that respondent No. 2 be directed to enquire the matter of illegal appointment/ regularization of private respondent Nos. 3 to 15 and after enquiry, if it is found that they have been appointment illegally, in view of the fact that they have got less marks than the petitioners and have not appeared in the cycle test, their appointments/ regularization procedure may be cancelled. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioners who were working as daily wagers have earlier preferred W.P.(S). No. 4508 of 2010 for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for regularization of their services in 4th grade post in the district of Hazaribagh, in view of the fact that they belongs to SC/OBC category and their names were paneled for the year 2005 but their cases were not considered though the similarly situated persons, who were below in the rank of the petitioners were considered for regularization. It has also been pleaded that some of the persons were also appointed/ regularized by the respondents by giving the benefits of age relaxation following the Rule-54 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code, whereas, the cases of the petitioners were not considered. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Hon''ble Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the entire documents enclosed with the pleadings of the parties, disposed of the writ petition on 04.12.2015, holding inter alia therein that, "Having regard to the relevant material facts pleaded and upon considering the submissions of the parties, it appears that the respondents should take a decision on the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law and subject to the satisfaction of all laid down conditions. Peittioners have also alleged that there are persons from the same panel who have been appointed and some of them were reportedly over age. Therefore without commenting upon the merit of the claim of the petitioners, in respect of a panel of 2005, the matter is disposed of so that they may prefer fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, respondent No. 2 duly supported with all necessary facts and documents within a period of three weeks. Needless to say on such representation, an informed decision be taken in accordance with law within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 12 weeks thereafter." 4. In pursuance to the above order, the petitioners represented before the Respondents but no orders were passed on their representation. Consequently, they filed Cont. Case (C). No. 363 of 2016 before this Hon''ble Court but during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 2 has rejected the claim of the petitioners by issuance of impugned order. Consequently, the Hon''ble Court after perusing the impugned order, was of the view that no contempt is made out against the contemnors and as such, dropped the contempt proceeding against them. However, liberty was given to the petitioners that if they are aggrieved, they may assail it in an appropriate proceeding. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for redressal of their grievances. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that the respondents by not supplying the information in respect of date of appointment/ regularization and issuing appointment letters to the 11 candidates who were below the rank of the petitioners as well as by not supplying the copies of certificates of Sport/PH Quota said to be annexed/ enclosed with the original application form create doubts that the regularization have been made on the basis of no certificate/ without any vacancies in the quota of PH/Sports and as such, it is prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to place all the documents before this Hon''ble Court to justify the statement made in memo by rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the interest of justice. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents cannot be allowed to adopt pick and choose method in appointing the candidates of their choice and ignoring the case of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents cannot be allowed to adopt pick and choose method in appointing the candidates of their choice and ignoring the case of the petitioners. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per vacancies communicated by the different government department of Hazaribagh district, the District Level Penal Committee decided to recommend the name of candidates as per merit and reservation roster and accordingly recommended 308 candidates out of 676 for appointment. Learned counsel further submits that the names of petitioners, who were at Sl. Nos. 525, 485, 542, 476, 597, 591 and 629, were not recommended because they were below in the merit list of the panel. After cancellation of panel of the year 2005, a fresh advertisement was published in the year 2010 for fillingup the vacancies of Hazaribagh district created after 2005. In this fresh appointment process, the petitioners were not qualified for appointment and thereafter, they filed W.P.(S). No. 4508 of 2010 for regularization and appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to consider the representation of the petitioners and to take decision in accordance with law, within a reasonable period of 12 weeks. In compliance of the said order, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh has already passed reasoned order vide memo dated 25.02.2016. Learned counsel further argues that not even a single person has been regularized from the panel of year 2005 and some of the candidates, who were recommended in the year 2005 for appointment, due to some reasons they could not be appointed by those Departments and remained un-appointed. It is further argued that claim of the petitioners was considered in accordance with law by the respondents wherein it has been found that none of the petitioners have worked for more than 10 months or as a daily wager or on fixed honorarium. Further, it has been argued that none of the petitioners worked continuously for 10 years against a sanctioned post under which he can be regularized as per notification of the Department of Personnel, Administrative and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide notification dated 13.02.2015. The cases of the petitioners were rejected as none of them fulfilled any of the criteria enshrined for regularization. The cases of the petitioners were rejected as none of them fulfilled any of the criteria enshrined for regularization. The handicapped persons were appointed in accordance with provisions and as per circular of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand vide No. 7281 dated 07.11.2007. Learned counsel further argues that in view of specific direction given by this Court vide its order dated 25.07.2018, the respondents have filed a supplementary counter-affidavit on 01.08.2018. Drawing the attention of the Court towards para-8 of the said affidavit, learned counsel submits that applications regarding aforesaid advertisement were submitted by the candidates including the petitioner in the year 2002 and there were 6068 applications received by the respondents-authority at that time. After extensive search of these applications which were kept in the record room, eight candidates, details of which is given in tabular chart at page-8 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, were found suitable for being appointed and subsequently, they were appointed on reserved seats for disabled persons. Learned counsel lastly submits that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the instant writ application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ application. In pursuance of the direction given by the Hon''ble Court, a reasoned order was passed by the respondent-authorities rejecting the claim of the petitioners and as such, it is apparent that the respondents have complied the order of the Hon''ble Court. Further it has been clearly mentioned by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that none of the persons who are below the petitioners have been considered for regularization. The petitioners have approached this Hon''ble Court seeking appointments against the penal of 2005. As the panel of the year 2005 is already expired, no claim for regularization is maintainable at this stage in 2018. Further, vide order dated 25.07.2018, this Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to file a specific affidavit annexing the documents on which 11 persons, whose names have been mentioned in the impugned order, have been appointed against the reserved category of handicapped, sports and women quota. Further, vide order dated 25.07.2018, this Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to file a specific affidavit annexing the documents on which 11 persons, whose names have been mentioned in the impugned order, have been appointed against the reserved category of handicapped, sports and women quota. In compliance of the Court''s order, the respondents have filed supplementary counter-affidavit dated 01.08.2018, wherein in para-8, it has been categorically mentioned that after extensive search of the applications, which were 6068 in numbers, they could find the applications of eight candidates for being appointed under the quota of disabled persons and consequently, they were offered appointed and as such, there is no discrepancy in rejecting claim of the petitioners. 8. Further, the petitioners are seeking appointment from the panel of 2005. Admittedly, petitioners did not qualify for their appointment. The respondents have passed a reasoned order vide memo dated 25.02.2016 and have clearly mentioned that not a single person has been regularized from the panel of 2005. The petitioners cannot claim parity with the persons appointed in reserved category of handicapped, sports and women quota. The arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is not at all acceptable to this Court in view of the supplementary counter-affidavit brought on record, wherein it has been categorically mentioned by the respondents that candidates who were appointed earlier belong to handicapped, sports and women quota who fulfilled all the requisite for getting employment under such quota and there is no discrepancy in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and legal propositions, I am of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the respondents. The impugned letter dated 25.02.2016 does not suffer from any legal infirmity and hence, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners for their regularization is fully justified. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.