Jharkhand High Court
Arvind Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 8 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 5875 of 2011
Arvind Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashami, Adv.
: Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate
: Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, Advocate
18/08.08.2022
1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, has
submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment
passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014, which has been
decided on 16.06.2022. It is not in dispute that so far no appeal has
been filed against the aforesaid judgment.
Arguments of the petitioner
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case
is distinguishable on facts as compared to the judgment passed in W.P.
(S) No. 244/2014. The learned counsel submits that so far as history of
appointment of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has been
appointed as Assistant in the Secretariat against the advertisement vide
notice No. 11/1985. She submits that the Bihar Public Service
Commission (herein after referred to as the 'BPSC') vide letter dated
13.09.1995 submitted a list of 177 persons with recommendation of
170 suitable candidates for their appointment to the Secretary,
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, in
which the name of the petitioner figured at serial No. 128, but without
assigning any reason, the concerned department returned the said
letter of recommendation in respect of the petitioner along with three
others even where the vacancies were available. The aforesaid letter
dated 13.09.1995 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
She further submits that the Personnel and Administrative Reform
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna resubmitted requisition to
BPSC asking for recommendation for appointment of the petitioner
along with others vide letter No. 9 dated 07.01.1998 (Annexure-2) and
in response to such requisition, the BPSC sent recommendation for
appointment of the petitioner along with others to the concerned
department vide letter No. 328 dated 26.09.1998 (Annexure-3) and
consequently, the petitioner was ultimately appointed vide letter No.
85 dated 10.02.1999.
4. The specific case of the petitioner is that the name of the
petitioner was already recommended by the BPSC as back as in the
year 1995 and for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the same was
returned back and the name was again recommended in the year 1998
and ultimately, the petitioner has been appointed in the year 1999. The
learned counsel submits that the petitioner should be placed in
seniority list by treating the date of appointment of the petitioner at
least with respect to the date of initial recommendation i.e.,
13.09.1995 and the name of the petitioner should be placed just below
the various selected candidates out of the merit list relating to
advertisement of the year 1985.
5. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no idea as to why the
name of the petitioner was returned, although the name was
recommended on 13.09.1995. It is further not in dispute that the
petitioner had not taken any step pursuant to return of the name.
6. During the course of argument, it also transpired that so far as
the recommendation of the name of the petitioner in the year 1995
vide letter dated 13.09.1995 is concerned, the same was the result of
various orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No. 5298/1993. It is further not in dispute that as per the letter of
appointment issued to the petitioner dated 10.02.1999, there was a
specific clause that the appointment will be counted from the date of
joining.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of her case, has
relied upon the following judgments: -
(i) 2015 (1) ALT 680 (Ramalingeswara Rao and Ors.
vs. C & M.C. A.P. Transco and Ors.); Para 15
(ii) (2008) 7 SCC 728 (Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors.
vs. State of Haryana & Ors.); Para 8
(iii) (2019) 12 SCC 798 (Dinesh Kumar Kashyap &
Ors. vs. South East Central Railway & Ors.) Para 7
(iv) (2014) 10 SCC 357 (Asis Kumar Samanta vs.
State of West Bengal); Para 4 and 5
(v) L.P.A. No. 588 of 2015 (Smt. Harjeet Kaur vs. The
State of Jharkhand & Ors.) decided on 12th April, 2016
Arguments of the respondents
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the
other hand, has given a comparative chart to compare the facts of the
case of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 and the present writ petition. He
submits that the case of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 was
on better footing as compared to the case of the present petitioner, but
still the case was dismissed. He submits that the date of appointment
of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 was 10.09.1998 and that
of the petitioner was 11.02.1999. The learned counsel submits that
although the reason as to why the name of the petitioner was sent back
is not reflecting from the records of this case, but the same is
reflecting from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court
reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 and he refers to paragraph-5 to 12 of
the said judgment. He submits that the name of the petitioner for
appointment was recommended pursuant to the various orders passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner cannot be given any
seniority as compared to those persons who were recruited and joined
in service in the intervening period prior to date of joining of the
petitioner.
9. The learned counsel has also submitted that this Court in W.P.
(S) No. 244/2014 has clearly held that the date of entering into the
cadre would be the date giving the seniority position . He has referred
to paragraph 36(c) at page 20 of W.P. (S) No. 244 o 2014 to submit
that the petitioner was not appointed along with those who were
declared successful pursuant to recruitment process initiated in the
year 1985, but was appointed pursuant to the orders passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Patna High Court, though the
petitioner's name reflected in the merit list of the recruitment process
of advertisement of the year 1985. The learned counsel has also
referred to the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2020 2 JCR
194 (Lalan Prasad lal @ Lalan Pd. Lal vs. The State of Jharkhand)
and submits that the judgment passed in L.P.A. No 588/2015 has been
considered in the said judgment.
10. Arguments have been concluded.
11. Post this case for judgment on 26th September, 2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
