Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 6 December, 2023
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.683 of 2023
-----
1. Rajendra Paswan
2. Ashok Kumar Munda
3. Mamta Nutan Dungdung
4. Kalicharan Machhuwa
5. Jeevan Prakash .......... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi.
2. The Department of Home, through its Principal Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi.
3. The Director General-cum-Commandant General, Home
Guard and Fire Service, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The Director General, Home Guards, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.III
-----
Order No.05 Date: 06.12.2023
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of
direction upon the respondent authorities to appoint the
petitioners on the post of Sub Inspector/Company Commander
as per their qualification in the light of the policy decision of
the Government as contained in letter no.1727 dated 13th April,
2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued under the
signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Prison
and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
in compliance of the judgment dated 12th August, 2016 passed
in W.P.(S) No.1562 of 2014 and other analogous cases.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that
similar writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1743 of 2022 (Anil Kumar
Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) came up for
consideration before a coordinate Bench of this Court, which
has been dismissed vide order dated 28th August, 2023 with
certain observations.
3. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.III appearing on behalf of the
respondents accepts the said submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners.
4. Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner, it would be appropriate to quote relevant part of the
order dated 28th August, 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.1743 of
2022, which reads as under:-
"9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
this Court finds that the case arising out of the selection
in Advertisement No.1 of 2008 published on 08.08.2009
was subject matter of consideration in W.P.(S). No1562
of 2014 and as per the case of the petitioners they were
intervenors in the said proceedings. The writ petition
was ultimately disposed of by observations and direction
as contained in paragraph nos.14 to 17 of the aforesaid
judgment which are quoted as under:-
"14. So far as the intervenors are concerned,
admittedly, though their names could not find place
in the revised merit list but it has been stated at the
bar that they have secured more marks than the
petitioners but the case of the petitioners stands on
better footing on the ground that after initial
selection, they were appointed and subsequently they
underwent the training, whereas, the intervenors
were not appointed on the earlier occasions. Although
the appointment of the present petitioners were
challenged in a batch of writ petitions, but since the
present petitioners have continued in the post for a
considerable length of service, having left their
previous assignments with the fond hope to have a
greener pasture or better prospects, the petitioners
stand in a slightly better footing, compared to
intervenors. With a view to give justice to all the
candidates, this Court vide order dated-11.12.2015,
specifically directed the State Government to file a
supplementary counter affidavit, indicating the
vacancy position but the supplementary counter
affidavit filed by State, disclosed that there was no
vacancy during the said period. In the absence of any
clear-cut vacancies, existing or anticipated vacancies,
this Court is not in a position to direct the respondents
to consider the case of the intervenors for
appointment in the respective different posts.
However, if in future, any selection is made to the
posts in question, the respondents would be obligated
to consider the case of the intervenors in relaxing the
upper age limit in appropriate case in accordance with
law.
15. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing
paragraphs and as the view of this Court gets fortified
by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered
in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (Supra) and as a
logical sequitor to the aforesaid reasoning, the
impugned order of termination of services of the
petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside and the
respondents are directed to pass orders for
reinstatement of the petitioners in services against
existing anticipated or future vacancies, treating it to
be fresh appointments and on their reinstatement,
they shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority list
of the revised merit list. The whole exercise be
completed expeditiously, preferably within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this order.
16. With the aforesaid direction, these writ petitions
stand allowed.
17. Consequently, all Interlocutory applications filed
in these writ applications stand disposed of."
10. From the perusal of paragraph no. 14 of the
aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that the case of the
writ petitioners of the said cases were found to be on a
better footing as compared to the intervenors and in
absence of any clear cut vacancies existing or
anticipated vacancies, the Court was not in a position to
direct the respondents to consider the case of the
intervenors for appointment in the respective different
posts. However, observation was made that if in future
any selection is made to the post in question, the
respondents would be obligated to consider the case of
the intervenors in relaxing the upper age limit in
appropriate case in accordance with law.
11. This Court is of the considered view that no relief
as such was granted to the petitioners who were
intervenors in the earlier writ petitions in the matter of
selection arising out of Advertisement No.1 of 2008.
Rather, the observations were made in connection with
any future selection, in which, the intervenors would be
entitled for relaxation in upper age limit in accordance
with law. This Court also finds that as per paragraph no.
18 of the counter-affidavit so far as the selection process
arising out of Advertisement No.1 of 2008 is concerned,
it has been categorically stated that the names of the
petitioners did not figure in the merit list as they have
failed to secure the cut off marks.
12. In view of the clear averments made in the
counter-affidavit and in view of the aforesaid
observation, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioners are not entitle for any mandamus as prayed
for in this writ petition.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is accordingly
dismissed."
5. Since according to the leaned counsel for the parties, the
present writ petition is covered by the order dated 28 th August,
2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.1743 of 2022, the same is also
dismissed in terms with the said order.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
