Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2595 (JHR)

Gora Chand Seth v. Union Of India

2018-11-28

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2018
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan PrasadJ. - This writ petition is filed for the issuance of direction upon the State-respondent to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner to be appointed as Multi Tasking (Non Technical) Staff, who was qualified in paper I and II but not recommended for such appointment. 2. The case in brief in this writ petition is that in terms of advertisement published for selection of appointment as Multi Tasking (Non Technical) Staff, the petitioner has made application in VH Category and accordingly an Admission Certificate was issued in his favour to appear in paper I examination on 23.02.2014. Accordingly, he has appeared in the said examination. The result was published and the person under VH Category, who has secured 88.25 marks, has been declared successful candidates. Since the petitioner has qualified in paper I and therefore, Admission Certificate was issued in his favour to appear in paper II examination on 17.08.14. After preparation of the selection list, the petitioner''s name stands at serial no. 49. 3. It is the case of petitioner that under VH Category he has secured 95.50 marks, whereas Sourav Kumar Ojha, whose name figured at serial no. 16 under VH Category has got 88.25 marks, but even though his marks is less than the marks obtained by the petitioner under the aforesaid category, he is found to be successful and accordingly the writ petition has been filed. 4. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit wherein stand has been taken by the respondents that the petitioner has made application to be considered for selection and engagement under VH category who has obtained 95.50 marks while Sourav Kumar Ojha had secured 88.25 marks, but the petitioner has not been selected and engaged for the reason that there was no vacancy for SC candidates in the State of Jharkhand on the post of Multi Tasking (Non-Techincal) Staff as evident from the details of vacancy furnished in the paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and therefore it has been submitted that in absence of vacancy the petitioner has not been selected and engaged and therefore there is no illegality in not selecting the petitioner. 5. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident from the materials available on record that the petitioner, who happens to be under the Scheduled Caste Category, has made an application for consideration of his candidature to be engaged as Multi Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff in the State of Jharkhand. 6. The grievance raised by the petitioner that even though, he has obtained higher marks than out of one Sourav Kumar Ojha, he has not been selected and engaged. 7. But this court while appreciating the stand taken in the counteraffidavit at paragraph 3 and 4 wherein it has been stated that candidature of petitioner has been considered but in absence of vacancy under the Scheduled Caste Category, has not been recommended for selection, there is no dispute upon the settled position of law that appointment is to be made against vacancy notified in the advertisement. 8. It is evident from advertisement as contained in Annexure-1 that no vacancy position has been notified in the advertisement. It is evident from the paragraph 3 and 4 of the counter-affidavit wherein the details of vacancy in the State of Jharkhand has been given and under the Scheduled Caste Category the vacancy position is nill and since the petitioner has submitted his application for consideration of his candidature under the Scheduled Caste Category and therefore as such in absence of vacancy he cannot be selected and engaged accordingly he has not been recommended. For better appreciation the vacancy position as reflect in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit is referred here under as: State UR OBC SC ST Total EXS OH HH VH Jharkhand 3 9 0 1 13 0 0 0 1 9. In view of the stand taken by the State-respondent in the counter-affidavit at paragraph 4 and after taking into consideration the fact that there is no vacancy under the Scheduled Caste Category of the aforesaid post and therefore, no positive direction cannot be passed of this Court in favour of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and dismissed.