Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1941 (JHR)

Mrityunjay Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-24

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondent no.5 to make regular appointment on the vacant Class-IV posts from the final district panel prepared and published on 26.04.2007, vide Annexure-9 and the roster approved by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (respondent no.4). Further, prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent no.5 for appointment by relaxing the age. The petitioner has also prayed for direction upon the respondents to treat the case of the petitioner in terms of order dated 23.12.2008 passed in W.P.(S) no.911 of 2008 since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner has been working on daily wage for the last several years. A final district panel of 186 persons was published on 26.04.2007 after being approved by the District Selection Committee wherein the name of the petitioner found place at Serial no.40. From the aforesaid panel, respondent no.7 and 8 have been appointed on Class-IV post. In spite of the vacancies, the respondent no.5 did not take steps for filling up the vacancies from the said panel. In the meantime, the petitioner has crossed his maximum age limit fixed for the Government servant. Similarly situated persons approached this Court in W.P (S) no.911 of 2008, W.P(S) no.1132 of 2008, W.P (S) no.1731 of 2008 and W.P.(S) no.2271 of 2008 which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2008 with liberty to the petitioners to file their individual representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara stating in details about their claim and grievances along with the supporting documents. Since the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid order, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Since the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid order, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that basing on the work experiences as a daily wager, the panel which was published should have been given effect for regular appointment on Class-IV post but the respondents for the reason best known to them, have failed to exercise their bounden duties in regular appointment on Class-IV post whereby the legitimate expectations of the petitioner for being absorbed in Class-IV has been belied. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6, repelling the contention made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit it has been submitted that panel out of which the petitioner has claimed to be appointed on Class-IV post was published on 26.04.2007. Accordingly, a meeting of District Establishment Selection Committee was held on 27.09.2007 in respect of such appointment of empaneled candidates on Class-IV post. In this very meeting, on suggestion of some members it was resolved to draw objections, if any, from the departmental officers on the aforesaid panel and accordingly, required report was sought for vide letter dated 23.10.2007 and letter dated 16.04.2008 though the aforesaid panel has not been finalized as yet. Further, it has been submitted that roster has not been cleared and approved by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. In view of these circumstances, the petitioner has no indefeasible right for claiming appointment. Further it has been submitted that so far as respondent nos.7 and 8 are concerned their appointment were made on 21.06.2006 itself and these appointments were made in compliance of the order dated 16.12.1999 passed by the Hon''ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.2338 of 1998(R). Further it has been submitted that after creation of the district of Jamtara in the year 2001, the petitioner has not been rendering any sort of duty. It has further been submitted that respondent no.5 has already complied the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S) no.911 of 2008 and batch of cases as evident from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. 5. It has further been submitted that respondent no.5 has already complied the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S) no.911 of 2008 and batch of cases as evident from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. 5. A supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.5 and 6 dated 02.07.2018 has been filed, wherein it has been submitted that none has been appointed from the non-finalized panel dated 26.04.2007 and since then no panel could be finalized for the appointment on IVth grade posts. 6. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit has submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner is not legally tenable since the panel basing on which the petitioner claims to be appointed in Class-IV posts has not been finalized. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the record, the prayer of the petitioner for direction to the respondents to give appointment against Class-IV post pursuant to panel published on 26.04.2007, vide Annexure-9, cannot be acceded in view of the categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit to the effect that the said panel has never seen the light of the day. It is no more res integra that inclusion of the name in the select list, does not give indefeasible right for appointment. A person selected after due process of selection does not have any vested right for appointment. Inclusion of a daily wager in a panel certainly does not give any unfettered right to claim for appointment in regular Class-IV post basing on a non-finalized panel of the year 2007. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraph and considering the fact that petitioner has not been rendering services since 2001 as has been disclosed in the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.