Arun Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2375 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               W.P.(S) No. 3267 of 2020

                Arun Mahto, aged about 29 years, son of Binu Mahto, resident of
                village Tilsri, P.O. & P.S. Bhandra, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand
                                                              ...     ...      Petitioner
                                            Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Personnel,
                    Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of
                    Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
                    - Ranchi
                2. Jharkhand Public Service Commissioner through its Chairman,
                    having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, District -
                    Ranchi
                3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its
                    office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, District - Ranchi
                4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its
                    office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, District - Ranchi
                5. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service
                    Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. -
                    Lalpur, District - Ranchi
                6. Abhishek Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of not known to the
                    petitioner, presently posted as Probationer Deputy Collector,
                    Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar
                                                        ...       ...        Respondents
                                            ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, A.C. to A.G.

                For the JPSC            : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
                                        ---
05/30.06.2022         Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

"i) For quashing of the Notification contained in Memo No.3681 dated 29.07.2020 (Annexure - 4) issued under the signature of respondent - Joint Secretary, in so far as it relates to appointment of the candidates under EBC (Annexure - 1) category including that of the private respondent no.6 are concerned as the candidates having scored lesser marks than the petitioner in the merit list had been appointed as Deputy Collector under Jharkhand Administrative Services and whereas the petitioner who is physically challenged had been appointed under Jharkhand Finance Services treating him to be a General candidates.

ii) For quashing the result published by the respondent- Jharkhand Public Service Commission dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure -

3) whereby the petitioner though belonging to the reserved category of EBC (Annexure - 1) and having scored 617 marks has been allotted Jharkhand Finance Service and whereas candidates belonging EBC

(Annexure - 1) category having scored 607 marks have been allotted Jharkhand Administrative Service.

iii) For a direction upon the respondent authorities to revise the final result of the Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016 in so far as it relates to the selection and recommendation of the petitioner to Jharkhand Finance Services under Unreserved Category is concerned as the petitioner belongs to EBC (Annexure - 1) Category and grave prejudice to his preference of service has been caused by treating him to be Unreserved.

iv) Upon revision of the final result and the petitioner being placed in appropriate category of EBC (Annexure - 1), the petitioner consequently prays for offering him letter of appointment on the rank of Jharkhand Administrative Service as has been allowed to the candidates in the category of the petitioner. "

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the issue of migration involved in the present case is squarely covered against the petitioner by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.494 of 2020 decided on 07.06.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforesaid submissions of the Respondents. However, he submits that an appeal has been filed against the said judgment which is pending for consideration.

5. Considering the aforesaid submission and on account of the admitted position that the issue of migration to other service in reserved category involved in this case stands covered against the petitioner in W.P.(S). No.494 of 2020, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in the light of the aforesaid judgment passed in W.P.(S). No.494 of 2020 and other analogous cases.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav