Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 854 (JHR)

Annapurna Kumari Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand

2020-09-07

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for cancelling the entire selection process for promotion to the post of Lady Supervisors in the Commissionaire of Santhal Pargana on the basis of examination held on 25.04.2012 pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.02.2012 and later on modified vide advertisement dated 21.04.2012 on the ground that terms and conditions of the selection process cannot be altered during the process of examination. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he forgoes the prayer made in the writ application with regards to cancellation of entire selection process rather, he confines his argument on behalf of petitioner no.1 & 2 only, on the question of their cases for reconsideration to the post of Lady Supervisor as their results were not published on the ground of overage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that although the respondents were not justified in changing the terms and conditions during process of selection, but certainly eight years has elapsed; as such, interfering with the entire selection process would not be justified. In that view of the matter, the respondent-authority may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner no.1 & 2 for the post of Lady Supervisor as their results were not published on the ground of overage. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner no.1 & 2 were over age as per the advertisement, however, if the petitioners represent the respondent-authorities, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that in the advertisement dated 23.02.2012 regarding age, no limit was prescribed; the only thing which was mentioned that five years relaxation will be given to the candidates. Even in the corrigendum though the cutoff date was extended, but there was no reference of the age limit. Meaning thereby to say, the candidates were not aware as to what should be the age limit on the cut-off date. Thereafter, the candidates were issued admit cards and they appeared in the examination. In this view of the matter, certainly the entire selection process cannot be interfered after a gap of 8 years; even it is accepted that there is a change in terms and conditions during the process of selection. Thereafter, the candidates were issued admit cards and they appeared in the examination. In this view of the matter, certainly the entire selection process cannot be interfered after a gap of 8 years; even it is accepted that there is a change in terms and conditions during the process of selection. However, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to file representation before the respondent No.3; Director, Social Welfare, Woman and Children Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, to reconsider their case for Lady Supervisor within a period of two months from today. If any such representation/s is/are filed before the respondent No.3, the same shall be disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation/s subject to the existing rules and regulations and Government notifications applicable from time to time and if it is possible within the framework of the rules, their cases may be considered. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of.