Jharkhand High Court
Mala Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 652 of 2020
Mala Mandal ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ... Opposite Parties
-------
(Through V.C )
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, SC-I
-------
Order No.05/Dated: 13th August, 2021
On instructions, Mr. Rahul Saboo, the learned State
counsel states that almost all defects except few minor defects
which according to the officer instructing the learned State counsel
would be waived off by the Hon'ble Division Bench have been
removed.
2. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State
is lying in defects for more than nine months.
3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed on
compassionate ground and she was working on a class-IV post to
the satisfaction of all concerned. Still, about seven years after her
appointment on compassionate ground a show-cause notice was
issued to her and her appointment was terminated.
4. In W.P.(S) No. 1901 of 2017 with W.P.(S) No. 2599 of
2017, the writ Court has held as under:
"12. Lastly, under what circumstances the show-cause
notice was issued to the petitioner is shrouded in mystery.
Suddenly, seven years after the appointment how an
authority without disclosing any 5 reason nor there being a
complaint against the employee starts a proceeding against
an employee, in my opinion requires an answer. This also
has to be kept in mind that the petitioner's appointment was
recommended by a duly constituted Committee and what
were the proceedings of the Committee have not been
brought on record; it may disclose the reason why the
petitioner has been offered compassionate appointment. It is
indeed in public interest that past transactions should not be
reopened except in cases where fraud has been detected.
The order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4536 of 2014 on which the
2 Cont. Case (Civil) No. 652 of 2020
learned State counsel has placed reliance to support the
order of termination of the petitioner from service is not at all
relevant for the present purpose. The order dated
19.07.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4536 of 2014 reflects that
the applicant in the said case had raised a plea that under
the scheme of 2015 by relaxing the rules she could have
been granted appointment on compassionate ground. The
writ petition was dismissed observing that the writ Court
cannot direct an authority to grant relaxation. The judgment
in "Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (N.C.T of Delhi) and
Others" reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 is on illegal
appointments and particularly an appointment secured by
making false representation about qualification. Above all,
what is more important is that "expectancy of continuance"
of an employee is endorsed by this judgment "
5. I am conscious that this case before me is in the nature
of a contempt proceeding and I do not find any reasonable ground
for not complying with the writ Court's order. Mere filing of an
appeal is definitely of no consequence because the appellant-State
has not shown its bona-fide inasmuch as the appeal is still lying in
defects.
6. On the request of Mr. Rahul Saboo, the learned State
counsel, post this matter on 03.09.2021.
7. By 01.09.2021, District Education Officer, Dhanbad
shall file his personal affidavit disclosing the reasons why the writ
Court's order has yet not been complied by him. He shall also state
in clear words whether there is a direction to him from a superior
officer not to comply with the writ Court's order.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
RKM
