Jharkhand High Court
Sujit Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 30 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3998 of 2019
---
1. Sujit Kumar Paswan
2. Dewanti Devi
3. Suraj Kumar
4. Arjun Prasad Verma
5. Mahendra Yadav
6. Pawan Kumar Paswan
7. Lakhan Das
8. Nagendra Prasad
9. Kuldip Kumar Lal
10. Mantu Kumar
11. Jagdish Saw
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Personnel,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh
For the Respondents : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-II
Order No. 07 Dated: 30.01.2024
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of
direction upon the concerned respondents to fill the vacant post
of Group-IV through Employment Exchange in the Collectorate
of Giridih district in the light of order dated 29.11.2013 passed
in W.P.(S) No. 1361 of 2013 as, according to the petitioners,
initially they were selected for the said post and their names
were entered in the Employment Exchange but subsequently the
process of selection was cancelled.
2. Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II
appearing on behalf of the respondents, refers to counter
affidavit dated 31.07.2020 filed on behalf of the respondent
no. 2, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:
"8. That it is humbly stated and submitted that in the instant
writ application, the petitioners have prayed for direction upon
the respondents to fill-up the vacant post of class-IV through
Exchange in the collectorate of Giridih District in the light of the
order dated 29.11.2013 in W.P.(S) No.1361 of 2013 as initially
the petitioners were selected for the same and their name
entered in the exchange but unfortunately the process of
selection was cancelled.
9. That it may be stated that instead of giving detail parawise
reply, the answering respondent seeks leave of this Hon'ble
Court to bring some relevant facts for just and proper
adjudication of the issues involved in this case.
10. That, it is humbly stated and submitted that a panel was
prepared for appointment of employee of IV th grade, but there
were various complains of irregularities against preparation of
panel. Therefore, the answering respondent constituted three
enquiry Committees headed by the Additional Collector, Giridih,
Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih and the Sub-
Divisional Officer, respectively vide order as contained in memo
no. 71/NAZ dated 03.02.2013.
11. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the said
committees enquired into the allegation and found gross
irregularities and allegation to be substantially correct and
accordingly submitted its report for cancellation of the panel so
prepared. Thereafter, a meeting of District Appointment
Committee was called on 30.03.2013 to consider issues of
appointment fourth grade employees out of the panel of such
candidate and in the said meeting, it was unanimously decided
that advertisement no.1 of 2010-11 for preparation of panel for
appointment of fourth grade employees be cancelled and
accordingly the same stood cancelled.
The copy of the decision of appointment
committee dated 30.03.2013 has been annexed
as Annexure-A to the said counter affidavit.
12. That, it is humbly stated and submitted that thereafter a
group of candidates filed W.P. (S) No. 1361 of 2013 and LPA No.
08/2014 before this Hon'ble court which stood disposed of vide
judgment dated 29.11.2013 and 12-08-2014 respectively
whereunder this Hon'ble Court declined to issue any direction to
the respondents with observation that when next selection
process commences, appropriate relaxation of age should be
given to the petitioners."
The copies of order dated 29.11.2013 passed in
W.P.(S) No.- 1361 of 2013 and order dated
12.08.2014 passed in L.P.A. No.08 of 2014 have
been annexed as Annexure-"B" and Annexure-
"C" respectively to the said counter affidavit.
3. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that a group
of candidates had earlier preferred W.P.(S) No. 1361 of 2013
with similar prayer, as has been made in the present writ
petition, which was disposed of by not issuing any direction to
the respondents, however with an observation that when the
next selection process would commence, the age relaxation
would be given to the said petitioners. Moreover, L.P.A. No. 08
of 2014 challenging the said order passed by the writ court was
also disposed of by learned Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 12.08.2014 with similar observation as was made by
the writ court. However, there is no material on record to
suggest that pursuant to disposal of W.P.(S) No. 1361 of 2013
and L.P.A. No. 08 of 2014, any advertisement for filling up
Group-IV posts in Giridih Collectorate has been issued.
4. Under the said circumstance, no such direction can be
issued to the respondents as has been prayed by the petitioners
in the present writ petition. However, if no further advertisement
has yet been issued pursuant to orders passed in the aforesaid
writ petition as well as L.P.A., the petitioners will get the same
benefit of age relaxation in the next advertisement issued for
filling up the said posts in terms with the observations made in
the said writ petition as well as L.P.A.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
