Raju Singh vs The Jharkhand State Electricity ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 239 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(S) No. 2592 of 2009
      1.    Raju Singh
      2.    Yogendra Singh
      3.    Devendra Prakash
      4.    Shib Shankar Pandey
      5.    Rajiv Kumar Choudhary
      6.    Bal Gobind
      7.    Kuran Dhar
      8.    Bharat Lal Mahto
      9.    Mukesh Kumar Mahto                    .... .... Petitioners
                               Versus
     1.     The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, through its Chairman.
     2.     The Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi.
     3.     The Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi.
     4.     The Director (Personnel), Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
            Ranchi.
                                                  .... ...         Respondents
                               ------

CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

-----

9/ 16.01.2023 The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to issue fresh order of appointment or to allow them to work at their earlier posts, whichever is applicable.

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties jointly submits that issue involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 512 of 2018 and its analogous matters, wherein, the Division Bench has been pleased to dismiss the letters patent appeal filed by the appellants- writ petitioners, holding therein that the appointment made beyond the sanctioned strength cannot be said to be legal and the appellants have not challenged the enquiry report whereby the entire selection process has been held to be illegal.

In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the issue is now no more res integra as the similar issue fell for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 512 of 2018 and its analogous matters and vide order dated 22.12.2021, the Division Bench held in para-15 as under:-

"15. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts in right perspective rather made applicability of the judgment rendered in Vikas Pratap Singh & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [(2013) 14 SCC 494] where the Hon'ble Apex Court has enunciated that where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity, the appointee is terminated, taking a sympathetic view, order of termination ought to be quashed and appointee should be reinstated but on the fact, this judgment will not be applicable because herein the appointment cannot be said to be a wrongful or irregular rather the appointment herein is illegal appointment which cannot be legalized since made beyond the sanctioned strength of quota or even the entire working strength irrespective of quota."

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, rules, guidelines and observations, I do not find any merit in the instant case. Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

R.Kr.