Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 336 (JHR)

Mukesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-08

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the sanctioned and vacant post i.e. in class-III and class-IV posts in the Mechanical Wing of the Road Construction Department in pursuance of order and direction passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 2338/1998 (R) and in W.P.(S) No. 1704/09 with W.P.(S) No.1752/09, wherein the similarly situated persons have been appointed by the respondents. 2. The short facts lying in narrow compass is that petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis in the Road Construction Department for the purpose of construction and repair of roads in the erstwhile State of Bihar and had worked in the Mechanical Division at Ranchi. The petitioner has worked in the concerned department with utter satisfaction and without any complaint or allegation. It is the further case of the petitioner that for the purpose of regular appointment, the posts were advertised in the year 1997 and pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the said post. However, it is stated that the respondent-authorities did not proceed further in the matter of appointment and the respondents, after some time terminated the services of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons working in the mechanical wing of Road Construction Department had approached the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in CWJC No. 2338 of 1998 (R) for regularization of their services and the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 13.10.1998 has passed an interim order that the petitioner of that case shall not be terminated till regular appointments are made. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.11.1999, the writ application was disposed of with a direction to respondents to take necessary steps for filling-up of these posts lying vacant in the Road Construction Department within a period of six months. When the above mentioned order was passed, one of the petitioner namely, Etwa Oraon filed contempt application before the Hon’ble Court in M.J.C. No. 561 of 2000 and the Hon’ble Court disposed of the contempt application granting further six months’ time for compliance of the Court’s order dated 27.11.1999. However, inspite of the said order, the respondents had not taken any step for compliance of the Court’s order and accordingly, one of the petitioner, Etwa Oraon again moved before the Hon’ble Court by filing Cont. However, inspite of the said order, the respondents had not taken any step for compliance of the Court’s order and accordingly, one of the petitioner, Etwa Oraon again moved before the Hon’ble Court by filing Cont. Case (Cv.) No. 977 of 2002. It is the further case of the petitioner that after much persuasion and repeated directions passed by this Hon’ble Court, only to frustrate the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, the respondent Department identified only 103 vacant posts of 4th grade, out of earlier 3281 vacant posts, which was not disputed earlier by the respondent-authorities. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that 103 posts were earmarked for class IV posts only and the petitioner was working in the mechanical wing of the Department and admittedly, several posts of mechanical wing are lying vacant and the same was neither identified nor disclosed before the Hon’ble Court. However, Chief Secretary of the State directed the authorities to fill-up all the identified 103 vacant posts of 4th grade and he has further directed to consider the appointment of all 100 petitioners of CWJC No. 2338 of 1998 (R) and direction in regard was issued vide memo dated 04.07.2006. It is the further case of the petitioner that other similarly situated persons had preferred writ applications being W.P.S. No. 1749 of 2009 with 1752 of 2009, which was disposed of on 05.08.2015 with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment to the Class-IV post. At several times, the respondents themselves have admitted that several posts are lying vacant in the mechanical wing of Road Construction Department but till today, the said posts have not been filled-up. Hence, this writ application has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mrs. Asmita Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Road Construction Department more than 400 posts are still lying vacant even though these petitioners have not been appointed, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. Hence, this writ application has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mrs. Asmita Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Road Construction Department more than 400 posts are still lying vacant even though these petitioners have not been appointed, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. It is further submitted that the respondents are duty bound to fill up all the vacant post as directed by the Hon'ble Court's order in CWJC No. 2338/1998 R, W.P.(S) No. 1749/09 with W.P.(S) No.1752/09 but no appointment has been made and as such, a direction may be given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the sanctioned and vacant post i.e. in class-III and class-IV posts in the Mechanical Wing of the Road Construction Department as similarly situated persons have already been appointed. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that at the very outset, this writ petition is not maintainable in the year, 2016 as the petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of several years. In compliance of the order/modified direction of this Hon'ble Court, panel was prepared in the year, 2006 itself and appointment process was completed now and this writ petition is devoid of any merit and also on point of limitation itself, it is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit and submits that the services of the petitioner had already been terminated in the year, 1997 itself and now after lapse of 19 years, the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that before entering into the merits of this case, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself, delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances in view of the orders passed by this Court in the year, 1998 and 2009 i.e. almost after 17 years and 9 years respectively. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances in view of the orders passed by this Court in the year, 1998 and 2009 i.e. almost after 17 years and 9 years respectively. No relief can be granted to the persons even if they are entitled on merit, who keep on waiting for favourable decision of the Court in other similarly situated cases and knock the door of this Court for similar relief after a decade. In the instant case, even the panel was prepared in 2006 for appointment, but no order for revival of the panel after 10 or 20 years can be passed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1979 while dismissing the writ petition has observed that “for the first time in September, 1970 the appellant invoked the extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging the legality of an order dated 21.12.1966. The writ petition was filed after a gross delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing it summarily.”. This petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations and from perusal of the records, I am of the view that no interference is required in the instant writ petition and hence, it is dismissed.