Sushlesh Kumar vs Santosh Kumar & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2093 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  L. P. A. No. 111 of 2021
 Sushlesh Kumar                        ....   .... Appellant
                         Versus
 Santosh Kumar & Ors.                 ....  .... Respondents
                          with
                  L. P. A. No. 103 of 2021

Shyam Nandan Mehta                       ....     ....    Appellant
                           Versus
Santosh Kumar & Ors.                    ....     ....   Respondents
                             with
                     L. P. A. No. 114 of 2021
Pawan Kumar Gupta                        ....     ....    Appellant
                           Versus
Santosh Kumar & Ors.                    ....     ....   Respondents
                           ------

CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                           ------

For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Lal Vikram Nath Shahdeo (in L.P.A.111/2021) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (in L.P.A.103/2021) Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate (in L.P.A.114/2021) For the State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III (in all cases)

Oral Order 05 / Dated : 29.06.2021

L. P. A. No. 103 of 2021

Let the Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary be

impleaded as party respondent no. 11 to this appeal.

Let a copy of the brief be served by the appellant upon Mrs. Richa

Sanchita, learned counsel, who ordinarily appears on behalf of Jharkhand

Academic Council by Friday.

Let the certificate issued by the Jharkhand Academic Council,

Ranchi with respect to appellant-Shyam Nandan Mehta, copy of which is

available as Annexure-6 and 6/1 to L.P.A. No. 111 of 2021, be produced in

original under sealed cover before this Court.

Let the State also produce the original copy of the aforesaid

certificate which is available in its file with respect to the appellant under

sealed cover.

Let a copy of this order be served upon Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned

counsel for the Jharkhand Academic Council and let her name appear in the

cause list henceforth.

Let this matter be listed on 27.07.2021.

This matter will not be heard along with L.P.A. No. 111 of 2021 and

114 of 2021 rather it will be heard separately.

L. P. A. No. 111 of 2021

Heard learned senior counsel appearing for appellant-Sushlesh

Kumar.

Issue notice to the respondents on the point of admission as well as

stay matter.

Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. SC-III, waives notice on behalf of

respondent nos. 2 to 7; Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel waives notice on

behalf of respondent no. 8 and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel waives

notice on behalf of respondent no.10. Thus, notice will go only to

respondent nos.1 and 9 under ordinary process as well as registered cover

with A/D to show cause as to why this appeal be not admitted for hearing or

disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for which requisites, etc. must

be filed within two weeks.

L. P. A. No. 114 of 2021

Heard learned counsel for appellant-Pawan Kumar Gupta.

Issue notice to the respondents on the point of admission as well as

stay matter.

Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. SC-III, waives notice on behalf of

respondents-State; Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel waives notice on

behalf of respondent-Sri Shyam Nandan Mehta and Mr. Lal Vikram Nath

Shahdeo, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent-Sri

Sushlesh Kumar. Thus, notice will go to rest of the respondents, i.e.,

Santosh Kumar and Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta under ordinary process as well

as registered cover with A/D to show cause as to why this appeal be not

admitted for hearing or disposed of at the stage of admission itself, for

which requisites, etc. must be filed within two weeks.

I.A. No. 2761 of 2021 in L. P. A. No. 111 of 2021 & I.A. No. 1820 of 2021 in L.P.A. 114 of 2021

Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that ad-interim

stay on the impugned judgment may be passed as because the appellants

have been able to make out a prima facie case. Since according the

appellants, they have participated in the process of selection by virtue of

advertisement dated 04.07.2015 basis upon which the learned Single Judge

has passed an order declining the candidature of both the appellants based

upon the Government Circular dated 23.07.2015 which has been issued in

the midst of process of selection, therefore, it will not affect their

candidature.

Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C-III appearing for the State of

Jharkhand has submitted by referring to the stand of the State taken before

the writ Court in the counter affidavit that there is no fault in the process of

selection as because the advertisement has been issued on 04.07.2015

which commences the process of selection. If any policy has been taken by

the Government in the midst of selection that will not affect the process of

selection already initiated.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the

argument on their behalf. The date of issuance of advertisement since is

04.07.2015 as would be evident from the advertisement appended to the

record. However, the last date of filing of application was dated

07.08.2015 but after issuance of advertisement dated 04.07.2015 the

Government came out with a circular dated 23.07.2015 by converting from

one category to another basis upon which the private respondents have

questioned the process of selection of successful candidates i.e., the

appellants herein.

The argument advanced on behalf of the parties that once the

selection process begins i.e. 04.07.2015 the Government circular dated

23.07.2015 which has been issued in the midst of selection would not

affect the selection of candidate.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in that view

of the matter there is strong case in their favour since learned Single Judge

has not appreciated this fact and now their appointments are in stake and

as such it would be in the interest of justice to protect them since the

Government in compliance to the order passed by the writ Court is going

to take decision by terminating their services. It has further been submitted

that they are still working.

This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and

taking into consideration the aforesaid submission, is of the view that the

appellants have been able to make out prima facie case of ad-interim order

and if such order would not be passed there is every likelihood of removal

of their services in compliance to the order passed by the writ Court and in

that circumstances since they are still working it will be prejudicial to their

interests.

Therefore, we are of the view that appropriate order is required to be

passed in this regard by passing an order to the effect to maintain status quo

as of today till the next date of hearing.

L. P. A. No. 111 of 2021 & L.P.A. 114 of 2021

Put up these matters on 27.07.2021.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saket/-