Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Nagendra Mahli vs Rajendra Institute Of Medical ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3884 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3884 Jhar
Judgement Date : 11 October, 2023

Jharkhand High Court
Nagendra Mahli vs Rajendra Institute Of Medical ... on 11 October, 2023
                                                 1



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(S) No. 939 of 2021
           1. Nagendra Mahli
           2. Shobha Minz
           3. Satyendra Kumar Tirkey
           4. Vishwanth Mahli
           5. Ajay Minz
           6. Akash Francis Toppo
           7. Dhananjay Paswan
           8. Bhishma Narayan Sharma
           9. Puja Nayak
           10. Anita Topno
           11. Raju Xess
           12. Sita Devi @ Sita Kumari
           13. Ranjeet Khalkho
           14. Praveen Kumar Rajak
           15. Renu Singh
           16. Amod Kumar
           17. Shushma Devi
           18. Dilip Kumar
           19. Anil Kumar Singh
           20. Dharmendra Kumar
           21. Nilam Kumari
           22. Anil Kumar                                             ..... Petitioners
                                          Versus
           1. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, through its Director
           2. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi
           3. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Health,
           Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi
           4. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
           Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi                   ..... Respondents
                                           -----

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

           For the Petitioners:      Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha
           For the RIMS:             Mr. A. K. Singh
                                           -----


08/11.10.2023    The present writ petition has been filed primarily for quashing the

order as contained in memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021 (Annexure-4 to the

writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby after completion of

the selection process for appointment on the posts of Ward Attendants

pursuant to Advertisement No. 955(c) dated 08.03.2019, the same has been

cancelled by the respondent-RIMS and direction has been issued to take

steps for publication of fresh advertisement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that a writ

petition being W.P.(S) No. 3267/2021 involving similar issue has been

disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated

09.06.2022 quashing the impugned order as contained in memo No. 1592

dated 06.04.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the entire

selection process initiated in terms with Advertisement No. 955(c) was

cancelled with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case

of the said petitioners for appointment on Grade-IV post in view of the terms

and conditions of the appointment as mentioned in the said advertisement

and if there was no other legal impediments, to issue offer of appointment in

their favour. The respondent-RIMS thereafter preferred L.P.A. No. 565/2022

challenging the judgment dated 09.06.2022 which was disposed of by the

learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 11.08.2023 in the following

terms:

''60. Therefore, this Court is of the view that reason assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order cannot be said to be unjustified but taking into consideration the discussion made hereinabove and considering the fact that even there is some irregularity since the same can be cured or segregated hence cancellation of advertisement/entire selection process will be said to be at the cost of genuine candidate which cannot be said to be proper and justified otherwise for the reason that for no fault of successful candidates they are subjected to suffering, hence fresh select list is required to be prepared.

61. This Court in entirety of facts and judicial pronouncements, as discussed hereinabove, since is of the view that fresh select list is required to be prepared, after segregating the candidates who have resorted to malpractice or submitted forged experience certificate, including the candidate falling under reserved Category.

62. Therefore, the appellant-RIMS is hereby directed to:

(I). Scrutinize all the applications of the candidates afresh, as per advertisement.

(II). Further scrutinize the experience certificate/other testimonials attached with the applications properly and weed out the forged/improper one.

(III). The experience certificate, if found to be forged, the candidature of such candidate must be rejected - 34 - outrightly by taking consequential follow-up legal action against such candidate, if required.

(IV). The competent authority will take sincere endeavour for consideration of candidature of candidates who are applicants under EWS/reserved category by well scrutinizing their eligibility criteria based upon the proper certificate issued in terms of the policy decision of the State Government and if they are coming under the parameter of such reservation policy, the benefit of reservation under EWS/reserved category must be extended to them.

(V). Since the recruitment process has stretched fairly for four years for no fault on the part of the applicants, which put the institution like RIMS in adverse situation due to urgent requirement of class IV employees, therefore, it is directed to complete the whole exercise of recruitment by publication of „Fresh select list‟ within a stipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

(VI). Further, there is allegation of certain irregularities in the process of selection, as such this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the Director, RIMS to take appropriate legal action by identifying the officers/staffs who were/are involved in the faulty process of selection so as to deal with properly in accordance with law.

Since the evasive control over the RIMS is upon the State Government, therefore, the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department is directed to monitor the issue regarding the action to be taken against illegal doers so that such type of instance may not happen in future. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

63. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and directions passed, as above, the instant appeal stands disposed of

64. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.''

3. Dr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-RIMS, accepts the

fact that the judgement dated 11.08.2023 passed by the learned Division

Bench in L.P.A. No. 565/2022 applies to the present case also.

4. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is also

disposed of in terms with the direction as contained in the judgment dated

11.08.2023 passed by the learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 565/2022.

5. Consequently, I.A. Nos. 5539/2022 & 9856/2022 also stand disposed

of.

Satish/-                                                       (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter