Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2231 (JHR)

Mithilesh Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-08

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J. - Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for consideration of his case for appointment to the post of Forest Guard, pursuant to Advt. No. 3/2014 (Jharkhand Forest Guard Competitive Examination-2014). 3. The facts of the case in short is that an advertisement being Advt. No. 3/2014 was floated by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (for short "JSSC") for appointment to the post of Forest Guards. The petitioner having the requisite qualification, applied for the same and he was allotted Roll No. 14243159 under BC-I category for Chatra district. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he appeared in all the events and was declared successful but surprisingly, his name did not figure in the list of successful candidates for appointment to the post of Forest Guard. When the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of successful candidates, the petitioner made representation before the respondentauthorities for consideration of this case, as he has qualified in all the events and obtained 51.57% marks, which is higher than the cut-off marks fixed as 47.27% but no heed was paid to the said representation and as such, the petitioner was constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that petitioner has secured more marks than the cut-off marks as fixed by the respondent-JSSC, inasmuch as the petitioner has obtained 51.57% marks, whereas, the cut-off marks fixed by the respondent-JSSC was 47.27% only and as such, the petitioner ought to have been appointed to the post of Forest Guard but inadvertently or with some ill-motive, the name of the petitioner was not published in the list of successful candidates. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner was declared successful in all the events and have secured more marks than the cut-off marks fixed by the respondent-JSSC and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. Further, it was argued that in the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 04.09.2018, the respondents have realized their mistake and as such, a direction be given for correcting the list and for publication of the result of the petitioner, if at all he has secured more marks than the cut-off marks fixed by the respondentauthorities. 5. Mr. Further, it was argued that in the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 04.09.2018, the respondents have realized their mistake and as such, a direction be given for correcting the list and for publication of the result of the petitioner, if at all he has secured more marks than the cut-off marks fixed by the respondentauthorities. 5. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondentJSSC very fairly submits that in para-7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 04.09.2018, the respondents have already mentioned that the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent-JSSC in terms of the notice vide Annexure-5 of the writ application, subject to submission of caste certificate as well as residential certificates in proper proforma as mentioned in Annexure-5 of the writ petition. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Since, learned counsel for the respondents have candidly mentioned in the supplementary counter-affidavit that if the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of Annexure-5, the same shall be considered and if the petitioner has submitted the caste certificate as well as residential certificate, as per terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement and also in view of the fact that certificates were issued prior to 15.03.2017 and by a competent authority, as mentioned in the advertisement, the same shall be considered and if it is found that case of the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Forest Guards, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and as per terms and conditions of the advertisement, since the petitioner has already qualified in all the events and secured more marks than the cut-off marks fixed 47.27% in BC-I category. 7. Since the respondents have mentioned in the counter-affidavit for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent-authorities taking all the points and annexing the caste certificate of BC-I category issued prior to 15.03.2017, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the said representation, the respondent shall consider same and pass reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. 8. 8. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found fit for appointment, an offer of appointment shall be issued to him within a period of two weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.