Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 429 (JHR)

Suraj Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2021-06-09

S.N.PATHAK

body2021
JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Draftsman Mechanic, as he has been declared successful for Group-C post in Industrial Training Institution, State of Jharkhand under General category pursuant to Advertisement No.50 dated 08.09.2009 and taking into consideration the fact that though similarly situated candidates have been appointed vide letter No. San.San.5/Prashikshan (Niukti) II-237/2010 (Annexure3/1) issued by the department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an Advertisement being Advertisement No.50 was published by the respondents for filling up altogether 504 posts under different trades under Department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner being eligible, applied for the trade of Draftsman Mechanic under General Category. Thereafter, admit card was issued to the petitioner and he appeared in the written examination and upon declared successful, he was called for counseling to be held on 10.02.2011 for the trade of Draftsman Mechanic, Category-General. Accordingly, he appeared in the counselling process, but appointment letter has not been issued to him. It is specific case of the petitioner that a total of 4 candidates were called for counseling in respect of all categories in trade of Draftsman Mechanic but appointment letter in favour of only two candidates was issued by the Respondents. Aggrieved thereto, some of the candidates had filed writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 5450, 5449, 5433, 5699, 5425, 5421, 5426, 5427, 5428, 5432, 5435 of 2015 and 1550, 702 of 2016 before this Court and this Court allowed the said writ petitions and in compliance of Court's order, some of them have been appointed, but the petitioner has not been appointed though he was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3… 4… 5. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Authorities have adopted pick and choose method in making appointment and in an arbitrary manner, the petitioner has not been appointed, though he fulfilled at the eligibility criteria. He further submits that seats are still vacant and as such, a direction may be given upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that seats are still vacant and as such, a direction may be given upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the issue is now no more res integra. The issue has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 16.08.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No.1550 of 2016, which is affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit have been filed. 7. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no vested right to the candidates, who were called for counseling to be appointed. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case as issues involved in those cases are different from the present case, the last selected candidate is at Sl. No.3 in the merit list whereas, the petitioner is at Sl. No.4 and as such, he cannot be appointed. He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court after lapse of 9 long years; the petitioner was sleeping over for long and suddenly woke up out of the blue and showing impetus from the decision of this Hon'ble Court although those decisions are altogether different and not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards a reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Malkiat Singh, (2005) 9 SCC 22 . 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5449 of 2015 and other analogous cases, W.P.(S) 702 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 1550 of 2016 with detailed reasons and order of W.P.(S) No. 1550 of 2016 was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and since this writ petition is also covered by the said decisions, the same is being disposed of in terms of orders passed in W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.1550 of 2016. 9. 9. In view of the above facts, the case of the petitioner should be considered and accordingly, respondent No.5 is directed to verify the factual aspects /issues involved in the present writ petition vis-a-vis factual aspects/issues involved in W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016 and that of W.P.(S) No.1550 of 2016 and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petitions, the same benefits may be extended to the present writ petitioner also, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.