Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Satpathy vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3751 of 2009
--------
1. Deepak Satpathy
2. Arun Kumar Tiwari ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Jharkhand Government
3. Home Secretary, Jharkhand Government
4. Personal Secretary, Jharkhand Government
5. Secretary, Labour & Employment Department, Jharkhand
Government
6. Secretary, Jharkhand Combined Entrance, Competitive
Examination Board, Ranchi ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Bobby, Advocate
---------
16/03.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by
the petitioners praying therein for quashing the
Advertisement No.18 dated 07.7.2009; whereby JCECE Board
has illegally published the advertisement for the post of
Instructor because for the post of Instructor, a candidate
must pass the Central Training Institute (C.T.I.) or Advance
Training Institute (A.T.I.). However, the JCECE Board has
published the advertisement for the post of Instructor without
keeping in mind the qualification of C.T.I or A.T.I.
3. During pendency of this writ application a
supplementary counter affidavit has been filed.
4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the
petitioners fairly submits that due to passage of time he is
not pressing the main prayer as several appointments must
have been made till date; however, he draws attention of this
court towards the supplementary affidavit dated 23.7.2012
wherein several judgments of various High Courts have been
annexed.
In the light of aforesaid judgments, Mr. Tandon
submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to
reconsider the case of the petitioners and pass an appropriate
order in the light of judgments annexed in the supplementary
affidavit.
5. Ms. Priyanka Bobby, learned counsel for the
respondents does not have any objection. However, she
contends that the case of the petitioners can only be
considered provided any vacancy still exists.
6. In view of the limited submission of learned
counsel for the parties, let this writ application be treated as
representation and Respondent No. 5, in consultation with
Respondent No.6, shall take a decision with regard to
consideration for appointment of these petitioners in
accordance with law, rules and regulations and applicable
notifications and also in the light of judgments referred to in
the supplementary affidavit.
The petitioners are directed to file the copy of writ
application along with supplementary affidavit before
Respondent No.5 as early as possible.
Since the matter is of the year 2009; as such it is
expected that Respondent No.5 shall take a final decision
regarding the claim of the petitioners preferably within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of this order
subject to existence of vacancies.
7. With the aforesaid observation this writ application
is disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
sm/
