Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1993 (JHR)

Vinay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-12-10

S.N.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the new panel prepared by the respondents pursuant to the counselling held from 12.11.2017 to 20.11.2017 as same has been published in violation of the advertisement floated by the respondents for recruitment in the post of Grade-IV employees in the District of Palamau. Further, prayer has been made for quashing of appointment list dated 08.03.2018 issued by the respondents in terms of which the candidates have been short listed for appointment to the post of Grade IV posts on the basis of interview and written test conducted. 3. At the very outset, Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is now no more res integra and this writ application is squarely covered by the order passed on 12.09.2018 by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S).No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases. Learned counsel further submits that this case may be disposed of in terms of orders passed in the aforesaid cases. 4. Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submit that issues involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S).No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases and if the case of the petitioner is found to be same and similar to the case of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits. 5. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(S).No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases and if the case of the present petitioner is found same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S).No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits. 6. 6. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/ issues involved in the present writ petition vis-à-vis factual aspects/ issues involved in W.P.(S).No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases and if the facts/ issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petitions, the same benefits shall be extended to the present writ petitioner also, in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner’ case is turned down for one or other reasons, same shall be communicated to the petitioner, within a further period of two weeks. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands allowed.