Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 590 (JHR)

Mumtaz Ahmad v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-03-13

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. – The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against the sanctioned and vacant posts of ''Amin'' in the district of Dhanbad. Further prayer has been made for the benefit of the continuity of service and pay them the equal salary and other allowances, which is paid to the regular employees of the same cadre. Further prayer has been made for quashing the advertisement No. 03/2017 and alternatively direct the respondents to grant the age relaxation. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 have moved earlier before this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S) No.966 of 2015, whereas the petitioner No.7 in W.P.(S) No. 871 of 2016, which were disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2016 and 14.06.2016 respectively. It is case of the petitioners that, on being fully eligible for appointment to the post of ''Amin'', the petitioners have been working continuously since April, 2008 against the sanctioned and vacant post of ''Amin'' and as such, their cases should be considered for regularization. They have been engaged initially for one year but thereafter, it was further extended and as such, they are continuing on the said post till date. This Court after hearing learned counsels for the parties in W.P.(S) No. 966 of 2015 observed that in such circumstances, given the stand of the respondent also, it would only be proper that, if admittedly vacancies are existing in different districts for the post of Amin, such recruitment exercise be undertaken on the part of the respondent-department through Commission within a reasonable time. The process be at least initiated within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say in such recruitment exercise, petitioners if fulfill the eligibility criteria and are entitled to avail relaxation in age etc. in terms of Rules; would have opportunity to stake their claim. Accordingly the writ petition was disposed of. 3. In compliance thereof, the respondent floated an advertisement No.03/2017 for regular appointment of the ''Amins'' in the district of Dhanbad and other districts in the State of Jharkhand. in terms of Rules; would have opportunity to stake their claim. Accordingly the writ petition was disposed of. 3. In compliance thereof, the respondent floated an advertisement No.03/2017 for regular appointment of the ''Amins'' in the district of Dhanbad and other districts in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners working in the district of Dhanbad duly appeared in the said recruitment process but as they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, they were not selected. The petitioners after being declared unsuccessful on the ground of not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, have approached this Court, by filing the present writ petition, challenging the advertisement. Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of the petitioners though they were working on the post of ''Amin'' since April, 2008. Learned counsel further argues that in view of earlier order passed by the Hon''ble Court, the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered but the respondents with mala fide intention denied the opportunity to appear in the selection process and their case have been rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and argues that the petitioners have availed the opportunity of appearing in the recruitment process pursuant to advertisement floated by the respondents in view of the directions of this Hon''ble Court but as they were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, rightly their cases has not been considered. At this stage, when the petitioners have appeared in recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement and have been declared unsuccessful, it is not permissible in the eyes of law to challenge the same. There is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents for non-consideration of the case of petitioners. Petitioners again approached this Hon''ble Court for the same cause of action with a different prayer, by challenging the advertisement though they have been declared unsuccessful. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made for interference in the writ application. Petitioners have earlier approached this Court for the same cause of action. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made for interference in the writ application. Petitioners have earlier approached this Court for the same cause of action. Petitioners have already availed the opportunity by appearing in the recruitment process and now they cannot be allowed to challenge the recruitment process once their cases have been rejected. Earlier, in W.P.(S) No.966 of 2015, there was a clear cut direction of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court that age relaxation etc. must be given as per the existing rules and as such, no direction was there to give any age relaxation to petitioners beyond the rules and respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioners as they were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as enumerated in the advertisement. 6. The Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors. , (2016) 1 SCC 454 has observed that :- 14. "the question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra". 7. I do not find any infirmity in not considering the case of petitioners. There is no merit in this case. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.