Jharkhand High Court
Sweta Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 21 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3414 of 2018
Sweta Kumari, aged about 21 years, daughter of late Suresh
Choudhary, resident of Village - Tapakhash, P.O. - Latehar, P.S. -
Latehar, District - Latehar, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, at Dhurwa P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
2. Director, Road Construction Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa
at Dhurwa P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
3. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Jharkhand at Latehar, P.O. Latehar, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar
4. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand at
Latehar, P.O. Latehar, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar, Jharkhand
5. D.C. Palamu, at Latehar, P.O. Latehar, P.S. & District - Latehar
(Palamu). ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rabindra Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, A.C to S.C. Mines I
---
08/21.03.2022 Heard Mr. Rabindra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"For a direction upon the concerned respondents to allow /
change the petitioner to work on Class - III post instead of Class -
IV, post as petitioner has required qualification for Class - III
post."
Arguments of the Petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of
the committee which considered the representation of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment. He submits that the petitioner was
duly qualified for appointment in Class - III post, but her name was
recommended for Class - IV post and the petitioner was appointed on
Class - IV post though she had the required qualification for Class - III
post. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner filed
representation to change her appointment from Class IV post to Class
III post.
5. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by this
Court reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 195 (Md. Imtiaz Ahmad Vs. The
State of Jharkhand and Ors.) to submit that once the petitioner was
qualified to be appointed in Class III post, she ought to have been
appointed against class III post and in the said judgment, a direction
was issued to consider the case of the petitioner and subsequently, the
petitioner of the said case was allowed to work on Class III post. The
learned counsel has also referred to another judgment passed by
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 62
(The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs.
Vinay Kumar) to submit that the case of the present petitioner is
covered by the said judgment.
6. During the course of argument, it transpired from Annexure - 1
that the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate
ground in Class IV post and this was pointed out to the learned
counsel for the petitioner to which he has no answer.
Arguments of the Respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has
opposed the prayer and has submitted that so far as the
recommendation of the committee is concerned, the name of the
petitioner was recommended for appointment in Class IV post as there
was no vacancy available in Class III post. The learned counsel
submits that merely because the petitioner had the necessary
qualification for appointment in Class III post, the same is not enough
for appointment in Class III post in absence of any vacancy in Class
III post.
Findings of this Court
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds
that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment and
proceedings of recommendation for compassionate appointment to the
petitioner (Annexure 1 to the writ petition and Annexure-A to the
counter Affidavit) being Memo No.752 dated 19.12.2016 clearly
indicates that her application was made for Class IV post. It further
appears that while considering the case of the petitioner, it was
observed that although the petitioner had the necessary qualification
for appointment in Class III post, but there was no vacancy under
Class III post and consequently, the recommendation was made for
her appointment in Class IV post. It is further not in dispute that the
petitioner duly accepted the appointment in Class IV post and
subsequently, she filed a representation in the year 2018 to change her
appointment from Class IV post to Class III post. Thereafter, the
present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the
respondents to change the work of the petitioner to Class III post
instead of Class IV post.
9. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the
petitioner had the necessary qualification for appointment in Class III
post, the same by itself is not enough to entitle the petitioner to her
appointment in Class III post. This Court further finds that admittedly
at the time of consideration of the case of the petitioner by the
committee, there was no vacancy in Class III post and further the
document itself indicates that the petitioner had applied for Class IV
post. The recommendation was also made for appointment of the
petitioner for Class IV post and the petitioner duly accepted and joined
in Class IV post. This Court is of the considered view that after having
joined in Class IV post, it was not open to the petitioner to ask for
change of her compassionate appointment from Class IV post to Class
III post.
10. So far as judgment relied upon by the petitioner reported in
2015 (2) JLJR 195 (supra) is concerned, the said judgment does not
apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, the
recommendation was made to appoint on Class III post, but the
petitioner of the said case was appointed in Class IV post instead of
class III post and in such circumstances, relief was given to the
petitioner of the said case after rejecting the plea of the respondent
that after having accepted the appointment in class IV post it was not
open to the incumbent to ask for a change. However, in the present
case, the recommendation was made for appointment in Class IV post
and the petitioner was accordingly appointed on the Class IV post only
but subsequently she filed representation for changing her
appointment to class III post which is not permissible in law.
11. So far as the judgment reported in 2015 (2) JLJR 62 (supra) is
concerned, the same also does not apply to the facts and circumstances
of this case. The said judgement arises out of W.P.(S). No.2608 of
2013 where the foundational facts are clearly mentioned. Upon going
through the narration of the facts mentioned in the writ order, it
appears that the petitioner of the said case was offered appointment on
Class IV post and he was not offered appointment on Class III post
only on the ground that he failed to submit typing certificate. The
petitioner of the said case had approached this Court by filing a writ
petition being W.P.(S) No.3272 of 2011 which was allowed vide order
dated 13.09.2011 directing the concerned respondent to decide the
claim of the petitioner for his appointment on Class III post and
consequently, a favourable recommendation was made by the
committee. Inspite of such favourable order by the committee, the
petitioner's appointment on Class III post was rejected. Thus, in the
said case also, there was a favourable recommendation by the
concerned committee for appointment of the petitioner on Class III
post. In the present case, there is neither such recommendation in
favour of the petitioner for her appointment on Class III post nor there
could have been such recommendation in absence of vacancy in Class
III post. Rather vacancy was available in Class IV post and
accordingly, the recommendation was made for appointment in Class
IV post and the petitioner accepted the offer of appointment and duly
joined the Class IV post. It is important to note that in the present
case, the recommendation of the committee for the appointment of the
petitioner in class IV post is not even under challenge.
12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the present
writ petition being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.
13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
