Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1748 (JHR)

Musrrat Neshat v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-06

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for conferring benefits of pension, membership of subscription to General Provident Fund and other benefits at par with her Juniors and equals in the merit list published by the JPSC through a written test for Primary Trained Teachers Recruitment Examination 2002 held in 2003 and merit list published and communicated to the respondents vide result published in newspaper dated 14/11/2003 recommending to the respondents for appointment of successful candidates as per the merit list published by JPSC. Further prayer has been made to confer presumptive appointment to 2. The petitioner with effect from the date i.e. 22.12.2003 on which juniors and equals in the merit list were given appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers ignoring the merit list published by the JPSC and also for a direction to the respondents to confer upon petitioner inter-se-seniority strictly on the basis of the merit list published by the JPSC and the petitioner be ranked senior to her juniors who have been given appointment prior to the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case in short is that the respondents have issued an advertisement for appointment of Primary Trained Teachers and invited applications from the interested candidates. Petitioner having requisite qualifications applied and appeared in the Exam which was held in the year 2003 and was declared successful, securing Rank- 18 (Backward) in the merit list published by the JPSC in the Dhanbad Division. Respondent No. 5 has called all the successful candidates in his office for verification of their educational documents, in response to which petitioner has appeared before respondent no. 5 and submitted photocopies of all of her educational documents on 22.11.2003. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 has published the first appointment letter dated 22.12.2003 in which appointment was given to 211 candidates but petitioner was not given appointment in the first appointment letter, although in the same appointment letter the appointment was given to the those candidates who were below in rank from the petitioner. The petitioner made representation before the respondentauthorities, then a meeting was conducted and she has been assured that appointment will be given shortly and reason assigned by the respondent no. 5 that documents of petitioner was sent for verification and yet her educational documents have not been verified. The respondent no. 2 issued direction vide letter no. The petitioner made representation before the respondentauthorities, then a meeting was conducted and she has been assured that appointment will be given shortly and reason assigned by the respondent no. 5 that documents of petitioner was sent for verification and yet her educational documents have not been verified. The respondent no. 2 issued direction vide letter no. 404 dated 16/02/2004 that those candidates who have passed B. Ed. from the B.N. Mandal University, Magadh University, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, MDU, Rohtak, Burdawan University, West Bengal and V.B.S, Purvanchal University, Jaunpur should be given appointment only after verification of their educational documents but in the first appointment letter, appointments have been given to the candidates of Magadh University without verification of their educational documents and same also reveals from the letter dated 22/03/2004 written by the Dist. Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad wherein request made by the Dist. Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad from the examination controller of Magadh University to verify educational documents of some of the candidates who have been given appointment without verification of their educational documents. Thereafter second and third appointment letters were issued from time to time in which appointment has been given to other candidates but petitioner was not given appointment. It is pertinent to mention here that the juniors to the petitioner as well as to the other candidates who have passed from the Magadh University but petitioner was not given appointment. 4. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued on 06.05.2005 in which appointment has been given to the petitioner and respondents have delayed the appointment of the petitioner without any reasonable cause due to which the petitioner lost her legitimate rights of seniority, G.P.F. and pensionary benefits. Further the respondents have issued a notification on 09/12/2004 with cut-off date 01/12/2004 that those candidates who have been appointed after 01/12/2004 would not be entitled for pensionary benefits, G.P.F. membership etc. 5. Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Hon''ble Court has already disposed of several matters regarding the issues raised in this writ petition and suffice it would be if the instant writ petition of the petitioner be disposed of in view of the order dated 05.07.2017 and 16.08.2017 passed in W.P.(S). No. 1352 of 2007, W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017. No. 1352 of 2007, W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017. The learned counsel submits that as the issues are same and similar the instant writ petition should also be disposed of. Learned counsel further submits that similar issues went up to the Apex Court and was duly affirmed and similar views were also expressed in W.P.(S). No. 1352 of 2007, W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017. 6. Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State argues that already this Court has taken view of the issues involved in this case and the writ petition has been disposed of in W.P.(S). No. 1352 of 2007, W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017. If the petitioner prefers a fresh representation the same will be disposed of in view of the earlier aforesaid cases. 7. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that issues involved in this writ petition is same and similar to those of W.P.(S). No. 1352 of 2007, W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017. As such, I hereby direct the respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the fresh representation, if preferred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner prefers a fresh representation the respondentauthorities will consider the orders passed in W.P.(S). No. 1352 of 2007, W.P.(S). No. 6045 of 2014 and W.P.(S). No. 2497 of 2017 and if the issues are same and similar, the benefits extended in the aforesaid writ petitions be also extended to the present petitioner within a further period of four weeks. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.