Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1052 (JHR)

Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2020-11-06

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for following relief: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s), in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned Revised List published on 28.01.2009 being Letter No. 1/Pari- JPSC-27/2006-03/Sa.Ko (Annexure-7) whereby the recommendations were made for appointment of Headmaster in Nationalized Secondary Schools on Direct Recruitment Basis, without including the name of the petitioner, who is fully eligible and qualified and his name has been previously recommended for the said appointment as such the same is wholly arbitrary, unjust, unfair and not in accordance with law; ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order(s)/direction(s), in the nature of Mandamus, commanding & directing upon the respondents, specially the Respondent No.3, the Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand to issue Appointment Letters to the petitioner, as he is selected for appointment on the post of Headmaster in the examination held by the JPSC and names of the petitioner has been duly recommended by the JPSC for appointment to the said post of Headmaster and for which the verification of documents of the petitioner has already been done by the respondents.” 3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ application has already been decided in the case of Narayan Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 301 of 2009] and other analogous cases, wherein this court has held at para no. 14, 15 & 16 as under: “14. From the discussions made in the preceding paragraph, it is amply clear that so-called guidelines, which is in dispute and gave genesis to revised list, was not suo motto but it was issued after request being made by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. 14, 15 & 16 as under: “14. From the discussions made in the preceding paragraph, it is amply clear that so-called guidelines, which is in dispute and gave genesis to revised list, was not suo motto but it was issued after request being made by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Further the issue of JPSC become functus officio after final recommendation, as alleged on submission of first recommendation list, is concerned, it appears that on scrutiny of relevant Rules of 2004 and guidelines dated 13.01.2008, the Commission issued revised list and this Court after considering all gamuts of the matter in I.A. No. 3857 of 2009 (in W.P. (S) No. 301 of 2009 and batch matters) vide order dated 24.05.2010 gave liberty to the State-respondent to make appointments against vacant posts of Headmaster of Secondary schools of the State, out of the selected candidates whose names figured both in the first list as well as in the revised list. Furthermore, as per the pleadings available on record order passed in I.A. No. 3857 of 2009 has never been challenged by any persons, hence, at this stage, the issue of functus officio does not survive to be raised. Accordingly, issue no. I, II and III is answered. So far issue no IV, with regard to maintainability on the count of non-joinder of necessary and other counts are concerned, this Court on the basis of pleadings available on record that the writ petitioners have added few private respondents as representative capacity, this Court is of the view that writ petitions are very much maintainable. ” “15. On another aspect of the matter, from the pleadings available on record, it appears that main point of dispute is with regard to (I). date of acquisition of B.Ed. degree (ii).Counting of years of experience and (iii).Teaching experience – High Schools/Primary Schools. There is no doubt that the main foundation of advertisement is Jharkhand Rajyakiyakrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Sewa Shart) Niyamawali, 2004. In case of any confusion, Rules of Recruitment, 2004 has to be seen. But, even then when the Commission felt some confusion, the JPSC sought some clarification from the Government and accordingly the Government acted upon and vide letter dated 13.10.2008 it sent 12 points guidelines which helped the JPSC to come out with a revised list. 16. In case of any confusion, Rules of Recruitment, 2004 has to be seen. But, even then when the Commission felt some confusion, the JPSC sought some clarification from the Government and accordingly the Government acted upon and vide letter dated 13.10.2008 it sent 12 points guidelines which helped the JPSC to come out with a revised list. 16. In such view of the matter, the respondents-Director, Secondary Education is directed to take a fresh decision in consultation with J.P.S.C. with regard to issuance of appointment letters to the persons falling under category (I). Persons whose name finds place in only first list and (II). Persons whose name finds place in only revised list OR left over persons, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. So far persons, falling under category III i.e. persons whose name finds place in both list they have already been directed to be appointed no order need to be passed for those persons.” 4. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to G.A. III does not have any objection to the contention of the petitioner that this case is squarely covered by the case of Narayan Sharma (Supra). 5. In view of the specific submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ application is also disposed of in the light of order passed in the case of Narayan Sharma (Supra). Consequently, the Respondent No.3-Director, Secondary Education is directed to take a fresh decision in the case of this petitioner in the light of order passed in the case Narayan Sharma (Supra) with regard to issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant application sands disposed of.