Jharkhand High Court
The Secretary vs Laulesh Kumar And Others on 20 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 112 of 2021
The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission... Appellant
Versus
Laulesh Kumar and others ... ... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J.
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
For the State Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
For Pvt. Respondents: Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Shail Lakra, Advocate
---------
06/Dated: 20.03.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following, (Per Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
1) The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission has
assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.
3548 of 2020 order dated 04.02.2021.
2) The petitioners in that case before the learned Single Judge
prayed for quashing of the Advertisement No. 05/2019 contained in
Annexure 4 to the writ application so far as it relates to the
appointments to be made on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil),
limited to the extent of retrospective applicability of 10% reservation for
Economically Weaker Section. The prayer is also made for quashing of
the decision to conduct single selection process on the vacancies of
the years 2013 and 2015 respectively. A further prayer is made for
conducting selection process on the vacancies arrived in the years
2013, 2015 and 2019 separately and independently.
3) The learned Single Judge took note of the judgment passed by
the Coordinate Bench in W.P. (S) No. 53 of 2020 as per the judgment
dated 21.01.2021 and allowed the application filed by the petitioners.
4) There is no independent discussion of facts of law in the
impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge.
5) It is not disputed at this stage that the State as well as the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission has assailed the order dated
21.01.2021 passed in W.P. (S) No. 53 of 2010 by filing Letters Patent
Appeals and the lead case being the Secretary, Jharkhand Public
Service Commission Vs. Ranjeet Kumar Sah and others registered as
L.P.A. No. 82 of 2021. After considering the matter and hearing bunch
of appeals, the Coordinate Bench has come to the conclusion that
none of cases cited by the learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 therein are applicable to the facts and circumstances of
this case. In the above noted cases, the Division Bench further held
that rules of the game were changed once the selection process had
started. Legal matrix enunciated therein is inconsequential herein in
view of the fact that rules of game prior to the issuance of the
advertisement No.05/2019 continued to hold dispute during the
selection process and introduction of 10% reservation for Economically
Weaker Section by clubbing together the existing vacancies was not a
subsequent act rather it was the vacancy which was already existing
prior to reorganization of the State of Jharkhand i.e., 15.02.2019 and
25.02.2019. The Division Bench further relied upon the reported cases
of Jai Singh Dalal and Others Versus State of Haryana & Another,
[1993 Supp. (2) SCC 600]; State of Jharkhand & Another Versus
Ranjit Kumar Gupta & Others, (L.P.A. No. 614 of 2017); and Ranjan
Kumar & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others, [(2014) 16 SCC
187]. Based on such findings, the Division Bench have in very clear
terms held that the issuance of Advertisement No.05/2019
incorporating 10% of reservation for Economically Weaker Section by
the State Government cannot be said to be an arbitrary action on the
part of the State. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the learned
Single Judge has committed error of law in maintaining
inapplicability of reservation of 10% in the Economically Weaker
Section for the vacancies of the years 2013 and 2015. We are further
informed that some aggrieved parties assailing the judgment passed
by the Division Bench preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court which is registered Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.24010
of 2021 which was dismissed at the threshold as there was no merit in
that appeal. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in the judgment impugned is erroneous and the
controversy has already been set at rest. In that view of the matter, this
appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is
hereby set aside.
6) All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.
7) Urgent copies as per Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
(Ananda Sen J.)
Manoj/-
