Jharkhand High Court
Ganesh Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 November, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 357 of 2024
-------
GANESH MAHTO, son of Late Jhabu Mahto, aged about
59 years, resident of Village Badhadih, P.O. Chiksiya,
P.S. Chas More, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.
Bokaro, District Bokaro,
3. The Additional Collector (Establishment), Bokaro, P.O.
& P.S. Bokaro, DistrictBokaro,
4, The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Bokaro, P.O. &
P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 361 of 2024
-------
Puran Thakur, S/o Late Banshi Thakur, aged about 58
years, R/o Village Telo, P.O Telo, P.S. Nawadih, District
Bokaro, Jharkhand ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.
Bokaro, District Bokaro,
3. The Additional Collector (Establishment), Bokaro, P.O.
& P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro,
4, The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Bokaro, P.O. &
P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Rinku Bhagat, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sahabuddin, SC-VII
-------
CAV on:- 25.07.2024 Pronounced on:- 21/11/2024
Both these writ applications having similar issue
involved and being interconnected; both were heard
together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.P.(S) No. 357 of 2024 has been preferred for
quashing of memo no.601 dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure-3)
issued by Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro; whereby the
application of petitioner has been rejected to reinstate
him in service in the light of the judgment dated
16.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(S)
No.6436/2010.
W.P.(S) No. 361 of 2024 has been preferred for
quashing of Memo No.602 dated 14.12.2023 issued by
the same authority; whereby the claim of the petitioner
has been rejected to reinstate him in service in the light
of the same judgment.
3. Both these petitioners have moved before this Court
earlier against their respective order of dismissal from
service in W.P.(S) No.6436 of 2010, which was disposed of
by this Court by allowing the writ application in the light
of the order dated 13.10.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No.6064
of 2010. However, the respondents were given liberty to
pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
At this stage itself for brevity, para-3 to 6 of W.P.(S)
No.6436 of 2010 are quoted herein below:-
"3. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that in this case the Inquiry Officer found the charges against the
petitioners not proved, however, the disciplinary authority without
issuing any show cause notice to the delinquent employees
indicating the grounds on which the disciplinary authority decided
to disagree with the findings recorded in the departmental
proceeding, passed the impugned order of dismissal. This issue has
already been decided and the matter is squarely covered by the
order dated 13.10.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6064 of
2010, wherein the same impugned order dated 28.9.2010 was
quashed with respect to the petitioners of the said writ application
as such, the instant application may be allowed in the line of that
judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent State does not oppose
the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. For proper appreciation of the instant case, Para 14 and 17
of the order dated 13.10.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6064 of 2010
is quoted herein below.
"14. As a matter of fact now it is well settled that once the
Inquiry Officer found the charges against the petitioners not
proved, it will be open to the Disciplinary Authorities to
issue show cause notice to the delinquent employee
indicating the grounds on which the Disciplinary Authority
decided to disagree with the findings recorded in the
departmental proceeding. However, it was not open to the
Respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry into the allegation
contained in the charge memo, It was open to the
disciplinary authority to pass order of punishment after
complying with the requirements of the principle of natural
justice. However, it is not open to the respondent authorities
to conduct a fresh enquiry into the matter that too at the
back of the delinquent employee
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judicial
pronouncement referred to herein above, the instant writ
application is allowed and the impugned orders as
contained in Memo Nos. 757, 753 & 755 dated 28.09.2010
(Annexure-8 series), are hereby, quashed and set aside. It
would be open to the Respondents to pass a fresh order in
the matter in accordance with law after following principles
of natural justice."
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and the settled position of law, the instant application is
also allowed in the light of the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2020
passed in W.P.(S) No. 6064 of 2010 and impugned orders as
contained in Memo Nos. 754, 756, 758 & 752 dated 28.9.2010
(Annexure-7 Series), are hereby, quashed and set aside.
It would be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law after following principles of natural justice.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, both the
petitioners represented before the concerned respondent and
their cases were duly heard and after giving due opportunity,
their request for reappointment has been rejected.
4. During pendency of these writ applications, an order
dated 24.04.2024 was passed in W.P.(S) No.357 of 2024
which is quoted herein below: -
"6/24.04.2024 It is specific case of the petitioner, as
argued by Ms. Rinku Bhakat, learned counsel representing the
petitioner that as per the advertisement floated by the respondents
in the year 1999, the minimum educational qualification for
appointment on the post of Peon is Class-VII pass. It has been
argued that since the petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualification
got selected, but thereafter, on the frivolous allegation that the
petitioner submitted the fake certificate of Class VIII, he has been
terminated. She also submits that the stand of the respondents is
that later on, the same was amended by way of press communique
is not acceptable In view of catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court that rules of selection process cannot be changed after the
initiation of selection process. Learned counsel further submits that
it was never mentioned in the advertisement that requirement was
class VIII pass, rather, after the selection process was over, they
came out with a corrigendum through press communiqué which
was never communicated to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel representing the respondent-State submits that
the minimum educational qualification for appointment is Class-VIII
pass, as the corrigendum to the advertisement published in the
year 1999 was issued. Since the petitioner has submitted the
certificate of Class-VIII pass, which is a forged and fabricated one,
his service was terminated.
3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner clearly denies the
submission of the respondents that never the petitioner has
submitted the certificate of Class-VIII before the respondents.
4. The Court is of the view that in view of legal propositions that
rule of selection process cannot be changed after the selection
process is over and since it was mentioned in the advertisement
that minimum educational qualification shall be class VII pass, his
candidature could not be rejected on that ground. However, if any
false certificate has been submitted by the petitioner, the
respondents are free to reject his candidature. The respondent-
State is directed to bring on record the certificate of Class-VIII,
which has been submitted by the petitioner during the course of
recruitment.
5. Put up this case on 01.05.2024."
5. Thereafter, a supplementary counter affidavit has been
filed in W.P.(S) No.357/2024, wherein it has been specifically
stated that on the one hand the minimum requisite
qualification for appointment of Class-IV-Peon was fixed as
Class-8th pass, as per letter no.3577 dated 25.04.1997;
however, due to mistake in the advertisement no.27 dated
09.01.1999, requisite qualification has been published 7th
pass in place of 8th pass and when this mistake came to the
knowledge of the authority it was corrected to be minimum
qualification as 8th pass by a correction letter dated
30.10.2004 and vide letter no.301/Naz. Bokaro district dated
01.11.2004, same has been forwarded by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bokaro to Director, Information and Public
Relation, Jharkhand, Ranchi for publication of the necessary
information in different newspapers and the same was
published.
6. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that this
correction was noticed by the respondents in the year
October, 2004 and the same was informed to the Director
Information and Public Relation in the year November, 2004.
Specific stand has been taken by the respondent in the writ
applications that advertisement no.27 dated 09.01.1999, has
been published in the light of letter no.3577, Patna dated
25.04.1997 and in para-2 of the said letter it was clearly
mentioned that the educational qualification would be of
Class 8th pass and only due to this letter, the correction letter
dated 30.10.2004 has been issued.
7. One of the arguments of learned counsel for the
respective petitioners is that the rule of the game cannot be
changed in between. However, at this stage itself it is
necessary to indicate that when the minimum qualification
was corrected and duly advertised in the year 2004 then why
petitioners were sitting tight over the matter and first time,
they have raised this issue belatedly in 2010.
8. In W.P.(S) No.357 of 2024, it is also alleged that the
petitioner has submitted forged certificate and it has been
admitted by him during course of remand proceedings. As a
matter of fact, from bare perusal of both the impugned orders,
it clearly transpires that the petitioners have admitted that
they are only 7th pass and not 8th pass.
Thus, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that
both these petitioners were not having minimum qualification
for appointment as Peon-Class-IV which is as per letter
no3577 Patna dated 25.04.1997 and the same was also duly
published.
9. It is true that in the earlier round of litigation liberty
was given to the respondents to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law and the reason behind that was, that the
disciplinary authority without giving any fresh show-cause
notice while disagreeing with the views of enquiry officer
issued the order of dismissal; however, in the remand
proceedings it is crystal clear from bare perusal of the
impugned order in case of respective petitioners that these
petitioners were given reasonable opportunity by adhering to
the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, they were also
represented by their counsel and they have admitted that they
were 7th passed. The only ground they have taken is that in
the original advertisement the minimum qualification required
was mentioned as 7th pass. However, since the petitioners
have not assailed the basic criteria for getting appointment in
the post of Class-IV peon i.e. the letter of 1997, which has
been clearly quoted in para-19 of the supplementary counter
affidavit filed in W.P.(S) No.357 of 2024; nor they have
rebutted the said stand by any reply affidavit coupled with the
fact that one of the petitioner i.e. Ganesh Mahto in W.P.(S)
No.357 of 2024 has also submitted the forged certificate of
Class-VIII and it has been duly admitted by both these
petitioners that they are class-7th pass only, as such no
interference is required with the respective impugned orders
and accordingly, both these writ applications are hereby
dismissed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Fahim/-
