The Secretary vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2745 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                       L.P.A No. 347 of 2020

              The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi---      ---    Appellant
                                              Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
                 Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
              3. The Director, School Education and Literacy Department,
                 Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
              4. The District Education Officer, Godda, Jharkhand
              5. The Secretary, Madrasa Darul Hades, Harilkol, Godda, Jharkhand
              6. The Headmaster, Madrasa Darul Hades, Harilkol, Godda, Jharkhand
              7. Md. Mahfuz Alam
              8. Abdul Bari Ansari                               ---    --- Respondents
                                                 ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

---

For the Appellant: M/s Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Radha Kishan Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC-I

----

05 / 19.07.2022 Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the issue in the present appeal is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in LPA No. (s) 412/2020 and 404/2020.

2. In the present case also, pursuant to the Advertisement published by Madrasa Darul Hades, Harilkol, Godda on 01.06.2017, selection process was undertaken and appointment letters were issued in favour of the petitioners on 22.07.2017. However, as the process of selection could not be completed within 45 days, as per Clause-3 of the Circular dated 18.05.2017, learned single Judge rejected the plea of the appellant JAC and allowed the writ petition in favour of the appointees. Similar was the case in LPA No. (s) 412/2020 and 404/2020 where construction of Clause-3 of the Circular dated 18.05.2017 was involved in similar circumstances. Operative portion of the order dated 21.06.2020 passed in LPA No. 404/2020 is quoted hereunder:

"5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned judgment. The issue as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the present order is one and the same, as has been decided by this Court in L.P.A. No. 412 of 2020. For proper appreciation, Para 6 of the judgment dated 10.03.2022 passed in L.P.A. No. 412 of 2020 is quoted here under:

"6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the impugned judgment and gone through the materials placed from the record. The sole ground for refusing confirmation of the appointment of the writ petitioner is non-completion of the appointment process within 45 days as contemplated under clause-3 of the letter dated

04.09.2015 (Annexure-1) issued by the Secretary, JAC to the Secretary of the Madarsa. The said condition does not have any statutory backing and does not stipulate the consequences arising for non-adherence thereof. As such, the said condition cannot be stated to be a mandatory condition, which may lead to annulment of the recruitment process. The writ petitioner has not been responsible for the delay in sending the recommendation to the JAC by the Madarsa. No irregularity or illegality in the appointment process has been alleged or proved. The appointment process has been done after due advertisement and examination process. Learned Single Judge has taken a correct view of the matter and rightly issued direction upon the JAC to grant approval in favour of the appointment of the writ petitioner."

3. As such, the issue being no longer res-integra, the instant appeal is covered by the judgment rendered in identical cases i.e. LPA No. (s) 412/2020 and 404/2020. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. I.A. No. 1086/2021 is closed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Deepak Roshan, J) Ranjeet/