Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1939 (JHR)

Gajadhar Prasad Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-24

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner and calculate it from January, 2004 instead of 29.07.2005 at par with other selected teachers, who were appointed in the year 2004 and extend all consequential benefits attached to the post w.e.f January, 2004. 2. Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C to learned S.C II for the respondents and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondents-J.P.S.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner along with other 140 candidates were declared successful on 14.11.2003 for appointment on the post of Primary Teachers in Sahibganj district in the examination held by JPSC. It has been submitted that after publication of result, respondent no. 4 vide memo dated 31.12.2003 though appointed as many as 90 successful candidates but the petitioner was appointed vide memo dated 29.07.2005 in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since there was discrimination in issuance of appointment letters to several candidates, depriving them from the benefits of Pension and General Provident Fund, they moved this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court for grant of notional appointments w.e.f the date when their juniors were appointed in most discriminatory way. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in one of such writ applications, being W.P. (S) No. 1352 of 2007 [Harendra Kumar Ghosh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] the Hon''ble Court has been pleased to direct the respondents to issue office circular/order/notification giving notional date of appointment with effect from 22nd December, 2003 to the petitioners, which was affirmed in appeal. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner be granted similar relief. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that appointment of the candidates whose names were recommended by the JPSC was subject to verification of certificates of the candidates and only after verification appointment can be given to a candidate. Mere recommendation by JPSC does not confer any right to candidate. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that appointment of the candidates whose names were recommended by the JPSC was subject to verification of certificates of the candidates and only after verification appointment can be given to a candidate. Mere recommendation by JPSC does not confer any right to candidate. It has further been submitted that teachers training certificates of some of the candidates were doubtful, hence in compliance of the direction given by the Secretary of the Department, those certificates were sent for verification and after due verification, they were offered appointment. Therefore, there was no laches on the part of the respondents. However, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the law laid down in the case of Harendra Kumar Ghosh and other case referred by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on close scrutiny of materials available on record and also the decision rendered in the case of Harendra Kumar Ghosh , I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered in the light of Harendra Kumar Ghosh case. 7. In the net result, the writ petition stands disposed of to the extent that the respondent-State shall verify as to whether necessary documents, after declaration of result were submitted by the petitioner in time or not and if the case of the petitioner is ultimately found similar on facts, as in the case of Harendra Kumar Ghosh , the case of the petitioner shall also be considered for giving him notional appointment with effect from the date when juniors to the petitioners have been given appointment. It is needless to mention here that if the petitioner is granted said relief, he shall not be entitled for salary for the said period. 8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ application stands disposed of.