Shishir Tigga And Others vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2811 Jhar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      L.P.A. No. 201 of 2021
Shishir Tigga and others             ...   ...   ...   ...   Appellants
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others          ...     ...     ...   Respondents


                      L.P.A. No. 203 of 2021
Taleshwar Ravidas and others ...           ...   ...   ...   Appellants
                             Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others          ...     ...     ...   Respondents


                      L.P.A. No. 204 of 2021
                    (With I.A. No.3823 of 2021)
Faizan Sarwar and others             ...   ...   ...   ...   Appellants
                             Versus
Dilip Kumar Singh and others ...             ...     ...     ...   Respondents
                       ---------

CORAM:               HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                       ---------
In LPA No.201 of 2021
For the Appellants:          M/s. Sumeet Gadodia, Shilpi Sandil, Lavanya
                             Gadodia, Advocates
For the State:               Mr. Rajiv Ranjan (Advocate General)
For the JPSC:                Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate

For Resp/Writ petitioners: M/s. Ajit Kumar (Sr. Advocate), Vikash Kumar, Kumari Sugandha, Advocates

In LPA No.203 of 2021 For the Appellants: M/s. Prashant Bhushan (Sr. Advocate), Indrajit Sinha, Ankit Vishal, Bibhash Sinha, Advocates For the State: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan (Advocate General) For the JPSC: Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate For Resp/Writ petitioners: M/s. Ajit Kumar (Sr. Advocate), Vikash Kumar, Kumari Sugandha, Advocates

In LPA No.204 of 2021 For the Appellants: M/s. Anil Kumar Sinha (Sr. Advocate), Abhishek Sinha, Raunak Sahay, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan (Advocate General) For Resp/Writ petitioners: M/s. Ajit Kumar (Sr. Advocate), Vikash Kumar, Kumari Sugandha, Advocates

---------

Oral Order 03/Dated: 10.08.2021

I.A. No.3823 of 2021 (in LPA No.204 of 2021)

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for impleading the

persons as described in paragraph 4 as respondent Nos. 9 to 310 in

view of the fact that all these persons were parties-respondents to the

writ petition but they have not preferred appeals.

This Court does not find any reason not to allow them to be

impleaded as Performa respondents Nos.9 to 310.

In the result, this Interlocutory Application is allowed subject to

any objection raised in future by any aggrieved person.

Looking to the Corona days, Office is directed to make

necessary entries in the cause title of the memo of appeal within a

period of one week.

Further, it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that

several writ petitions were filed. Common order was passed by the

learned Single Judge. However, the respondents of some of the writ

petitions have not preferred appeals, thus, those writ petitioners are

not parties to the appeals. Therefore, there can be a situation that the

judgment of the learned Single Judge will attain finality so far those

writ petitioners are concerned and if the appeals are allowed, there

would be possibility conflicting directions in the matter. Accordingly,

we would direct that all the writ petitioners, irrespective of the fact that

appeals have been preferred or not, be impleaded as party-

respondents in the present appeals.

L.P.A. Nos. 201/2021, 203/2021 & 204/2021

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellants.

It appears that notice is required to be issued to the

respondents, save and except the proforma respondent before the

Writ Court.

Hence, issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General, waives notice on

behalf of the respondents-State in all cases.

Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel, waives notice on behalf

of the respondents-JPSC in all cases.

Issue notice to the private respondents to show cause as to

why the concerned appeal be not admitted for hearing or disposed of

at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites, etc under

registered covered with A/D as also by ordinary process must be filed

within two weeks.

Mr. Rupesh Singh, Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Ms. Kumari

Sugandha and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsels, appear and

submit that they will be filing Vakalatnama and waiving notices on

behalf of respective writ petitioners/respondents.

Let them do so within the aforesaid period of two weeks.

If such Vakalatnamas are filed, notices will go only to the

remaining private respondents.

I.A. No.3336/2021 (in LPA No. 201 of 2021) I.A. No. 3369/2021(in LPA No. 203 of 2021) I.A. No. 3370/2021(in LPA No. 204 of 2021)

The instant Interlocutory Applications have been filed for stay of

the order dated 07.06.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.1533 of 2020.

Before passing appropriate order upon the instant interlocutory

applications, it requires to refer herein that the instant appeals have

been filed against the judgment/order dated 07.06.2021 passed by

the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1533 of 2020

whereby and whereunder following directions were passed:-

"86. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed in the following manner:

(i) The merit list prepared by the JPSC is held to be illegal as marks of Paper-I was added in the merit list and Clause-13 of the advertisement with regard to minimum qualifying marks in each paper has not been followed and consequence thereof, the merit list prepared by the Commission is, hereby, quashed.

(ii) Consequently, the appointments made without following the procedure held to be nullity.

(iii) The JPSC is directed to prepare a fresh merit list with reference to marks in written test and interview without adding the marks of Paper-I in the merit list considering minimum qualifying marks in each paper and thereafter finalize the selection in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and recommend the same to the State of Jharkhand within four weeks thereafter and in furtherance, the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand is directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the successful candidates based upon the fresh merit list forthwith."

Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned

Senior Counsels appearing for the respective appellants assisted by

Mr. Sumeet Gadodia and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel, submit

that Mains Examination consists of six papers having total 1050

marks. Paper-I, which consists of General Hindi and General English,

is having full marks of 100 in which minimum 30 marks is mandatory,

therefore, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred

to as the 'JPSC') considered the merit of one or the other candidates

of the total marks secured by one or the other candidates taking

together 1050 marks but the learned Single Judge has interpreted the

marks stipulated for Paper-I in the nature of qualifying in which

minimum 30 marks is mandatory, not to be added in the assessment

of merit of one or the other candidates, meaning thereby, the merit

position of one or the other candidates will be prepared on the basis

of 950 marks which cannot be said to be proper interpretation of the

conditions of the advertisement.

The successful candidates have participated and taking

together the marks obtained by one or the other successful

candidates against the total marks of 1050, they have been selected

and appointed and now they are rendering their services but due to

the order passed by the learned Single Judge, their appointments

have been held to be nullity and the learned Single Judge has

directed to prepare the revised merit list.

It has been submitted that the condition which has been

stipulated in the advertisement is having no ambiguity, the same is to

be read out without any further interpretation, herein since the Mains

Examination consist of VI Papers, having total 1050 marks, therefore,

the merit position of one or the other candidates has been stipulated

to be prepared on the basis of the total marks secured irrespective of

the fact that the requirement of marks in Paper-I is to obtain minimum

30 marks, qualifying in nature.

It has been submitted that their appointments have been made

in terms of the advertisement wherein the merit position has been

determined on the basis of the total marks secured by one or the

other candidates.

It has further been submitted that if an ad-interim order would

not be passed, it will cause irreparable loss as there is every

likelihood that the appellants will be removed from service or their

position would be degraded on effect of revision of merit list as

directed by the learned Single Judge which will be prejudicial to their

interest.

Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned

Single Judge and also submits that the advertisement does not

stipulate the preparation of merit list on the basis of the marks

obtained against the total marks of VI Papers comprising of 1050

marks in view of the fact that Paper-I is qualifying in nature, therefore,

marks obtained therein will not be added in preparation of merit list of

one or the other candidates.

It has been submitted that Paper-I only consist of having the

syllabus of 10th standard and as such, if the interpretation of the

learned counsel for the appellant would be accepted it will mean that

the entire merit position would depend ultimately upon the marks

obtained by one or the other candidates of the 10th standard paper,

which cannot be equated with the marks obtained in the compulsory

subject which is having the syllabus of graduate level.

Since this Court has found from the rival submissions advanced

on behalf of the parties for consideration of the issue involved in the

lis, therefore, notices have been issued to the respondents,

accordingly, deems it fit and proper to pass ad-interim order to

maintain status quo as exists today.

Accordingly, status quo, as exists today, shall be maintained by

the parties till further orders.

Learned counsels for the appellants in respective appeals

undertake that they will not plead equity in case any adverse decision

is passed by this Court on the ground that the appeal has remained

pending and during that period they have remained in employment.

Put up these matters on 28.09.2021 within top five cases.

All these appeals will be heard together.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Manoj/-