Jharkhand High Court
Shyamal Rathaur vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its on 4 October, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1856 of 2021
-------
1. Shyamal Rathaur, aged about 24 years, son of Sri
Ramesh Kumar, resident of Ujjwal Bihar, near S.B.P.
School, P.O.- Mahilong, P.S.- Tatisilway, District-Ranchi.
2. Jawed Ansari, aged about 24 years, son of Md.
Rajomat Ansari, resident of Bargari, P.O.- Bargari, P.S.-
Mandar, District- Ranchi.
3. Arvind Vishwakarma, aged about 37 years, son of Sri
Nand Kishor Vishwakarma, resident of Bariatu Road,
near S.D.A. Mission Hospital, Garigaon, P.O.- RMCH,
P.S.- Sadar, District- Ranchi. ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its
Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, having office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town &
District- Ranchi.
2. The Secretary / Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its
Secretary, having office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O. &
P.S.- Namkum, Town and District- Ranchi.
4. The Examinations Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having office at Chaibagan,
Kalinagar, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, Town and District-
Ranchi. ..... Respondents
With
-------
1. Shyamal Rathaur, aged about 24 years, son of Sri
Ramesh Kumar, resident of Ujjwal Bihar, near S.B.P.
School, P.O.- Mahilong, P.S.- Tatisilway, District-Ranchi.
2. Dilip Lohra, aged about 27 years, son of Etwa Lohra,
resident of village-Kenabhitha, P.O. Nehalu, P.S. Bero,
District-Ranchi.
3.Kamal Kumar Mahto, aged about 30 years, son of
Rajendra Prasad Mahto, resident of village-Nawadih, P.O.
Barachangru, P.S. Silli, District-Ranchi.
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its
Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, having office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town &
District- Ranchi.
2. The Secretary / Principal Secretary, Department of
Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its
Secretary, having office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O. &
P.S.- Namkum, Town and District- Ranchi.
4. The Examinations Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having office at Chaibagan,
Kalinagar, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, Town and District-
Ranchi. ..... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv.
Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Resp-JSSC : Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, A.C. to
Sr. S.C.-I
-------
CAV On 13.08.2024 Pronounced on:4/10/2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since both these writ applications involves common
issue; as such, both were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Both the petitions were preferred by the respective
petitioners for quashing of Clause-4 (Kha) of the Resolution
dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure-9). Further prayer has been
made to quash and set aside the decision as contained in
Important Information dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure-10).
The writ petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon
the respondent authorities to issue appointment letter to
these petitioners pursuant to Advertisement No.03/2018 as
the petitioners were declared successful candidates not
only in the written test, but they were also declared
successful in driving test as well as in the medical test.
4. The brief fact of these cases are that the Government
of Jharkhand issued one Notification dated 14.07.2016
(Annexure-1), to the effect that only the local resident of 13
districts shall be eligible for appointment in Class-III and
Class-IV posts. Another Resolution dated 01.06.2018 was
issued with respect to rest of the 11 scheduled districts and
it was clarified that only local residents shall be entitled for
appointment in Class-III and Class-IV posts. Thereafter, yet
another Circular was issued on 20.11.2018 (Annexure-4);
whereby such type of reservation was extended even to
Non- Gazetted Officer of Class-II posts appointments.
Thereafter, an Advertisement No.03/2018 was issued
by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (In short JSSC)
for appointment on the post of Vehicle Driver (Heavy Motor
Vehicle) and Vehicle Driver (Light Motor Vehicle).
5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the
respective petitioners submits that the petitioners
participated and Admit cards were issued to them. The
petitioners appeared in the written test and the result
thereof was published on 31.07.2019 and 23.10.2019
wherein the Roll No. of the petitioners appeared as
successful candidates. Thereafter, the respective petitioners
underwent the driving test. This led to calling up of the
petitioners for medical test. Pursuant thereto; the
petitioners appeared for medical tests also.
When everything was at final stage, the respondent
no.1 issued impugned Resolution dated 05.02.2021;
whereby all the appointments were cancelled in a case
where appointment letters were not issued till then.
Accordingly, the selection process of Advertisement No.03
of 2018 which relates to the petitioners was also cancelled
on 01.11.2021. This led to filing of the present writ
petitions.
6. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Sunil Verma and Others Vs. State
of Jharkhand clarified on 09.07.2021 that the judgment of
Soni Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand has nothing to do
with other matters. Moreover, since the selection process of
many other posts by different advertisements were stopped,
some of the candidates who were appearing for
appointment on the post of (1) Lower Division Clerks
(Collectorate Cadre, District Level Posts), (2) Panchayat
Secretary (District Level Posts), (3) Lower Divisional Clerks-
State Level Posts and (4) State Stenographer - State Level
Posts, moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Contempt Case No.612 of 2022 arising out of the order
passed in Civil Appeal No.4038 of 2022 by filing
appropriate Interlocutory Applications.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, directed to
process the appointment in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the candidates belonging to these posts were
appointed after relaxing the conditions, which is evident
from Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit
filed by State of Jharkhand (Respondent No.1) dated
13.06.2024 in W.P.(s) No. 5068 of 2021.
7. Learned counsel contended that now the only issue
before this Court is as to whether when the process of
entire appointments in the State of Jharkhand where
appointment letters were not issued, was stopped by a
government decision impugned; but because of the order
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the
Panchayat Secretary, Lower Division Clerks, State
Stenographers were appointed; the petitioners are also
entitled for such appointment or not.
8. It is evident from the impugned Resolution that there
was a direction that no appointment can be made and in
fact, all advertisements were cancelled by Condition No.
(Kha) of Clause-4 of Resolution dated 05.02.2021. But still
the appointments were made in view of the order passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court. He further submits that since the
other persons of other advertisements were also not
appointed because of such decision of Government and
now they have been appointed, the petitioners cannot be
discriminated. It has already been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others Vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava &
Others, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 that similarly
situated persons are to be treated similarly. The dispute
relates to service matter and in particular appointment.
Since other persons were appointed, the petitioners are also
entitled for such appointments. He lastly submits that in
the light of the above facts the writ petitions deserve to be
allowed.
9. Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the JSSC
submits that the resolution No. 821 dated 05.02.2021 has
been issued by the Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand, and the respondent Commission has no role in
this matter. Once the government has passed a resolution
to cancel an advertisement, the commission has no option
but to comply with the directions contained therein.
He further submits that the respondent Commission
in the instant case has only complied with the
Government's directions issued in this regard and no
illegality has been committed by the commission. So far as
the issue as to why the persons of Advertisement No.
01/2018 and 02/2018 have already been appointed;
whereas similarly situated Advertisement No. 03/2018
which has not yet been concluded, is concerned; it has
been submitted that the Advertisement No. 01/2018 and
02/2018 titled Jail Hospital Paramedical Combined
Competitive Exam-2018 was concluded and successful
candidates were recommended way before the issuance of
resolution number-821 dated 05.02.2021 by the
Department of Personal, Administration Reforms and
Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.
He further submits that the successful candidates
under Advertisement No. 01/2018 and 02/2018 were
recommended vide Commission's letter No. 3281 dated
22.04.2019 and Letter No. 3382 dated 07.05.2019.
However, so far as Advertisement No. 03/2018 is
concerned; the respondent Commission has quashed the
impugned examination vide a notice issued on its website
dated 01.11.2021 in compliance with the resolution
number- 821 dated 05.02.2021 issued by the Department
of Personal, Administration Reforms and Rajbhasha,
Government of Jharkhand.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the documents annexed with the
respective affidavits and the averments made therein; it
appears that an Advertisement No.03/2018 was issued by
Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (In short JSSC) for
appointment on the post of Vehicle Driver (Heavy Motor
Vehicle) and Vehicle Driver (Light Motor Vehicle). These
petitioners appeared in the written test and were declared
successful.
Even, the respective petitioners underwent the
driving test and after being declared successful; they
appeared for medical test.
11. It further transpires that, all of a sudden, the
respondent no.1 issued impugned Resolution dated
05.02.2021; whereby all the appointments were cancelled
in the case where appointment letters were not issued till
then. Accordingly, the selection process of Advertisement
No.03 of 2018 which relates to these petitioners, was also
cancelled on 01.11.2021.
At this stage itself, it is pertinent to mention here
that by the impugned resolution, a blanket decision has
been taken to cancel all the appointment process where
appointment letter was not issued. Such type of blanket
decision in the garb of any order of the Hon'ble Apex Court
does not appear to be fair on the part of the State,
inasmuch as, the State should have come out with some
formula distinguishing the cases of different
advertisements.
12. As stated hereinabove, these petitioners appeared in
the written test and became successful. Even, the
respective petitioners underwent the driving test and after
being declared successful; they appeared for medical test.
13. It further transpires from record that since the
selection process for many other posts by different
advertisements were stopped; some of the candidates who
were appearing for appointment on the post of (1) Lower
Division Clerks (Collectorate Cadre, District Level Posts), (2)
Panchayat Secretary (District Level Posts), (3) Lower
Divisional Clerks- State Level Posts and (4) State
Stenographer - State Level Posts, moved before the Hon'ble
Apex Court in aforesaid application, and pursuant thereto,
the Hon'ble Apex Court directed to complete the process of
the appointment in accordance with law.
14. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions since the
process of appointment with regard to Advertisement
No.03/2018 was on the verge of completion and the
petitioners were finally sent for medical test coupled with
the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
candidates who were appearing for appointment on the
post of (1) Lower Division Clerks (Collectorate Cadre,
District Level Posts), (2) Panchayat Secretary (District Level
Posts), (3) Lower Divisional Clerks- State Level Posts and (4)
State Stenographer - State Level Posts, who moved before
the Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid application, and
pursuant thereto, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed to
complete the process of the appointment in accordance
with law; these petitioners also deserves the same
treatment.
15. As a result, these writ applications are allowed.
Consequently, Annexures-9 & 10 are, hereby, quashed and
set-aside. So far as Advertisement No.03/2018 is
concerned; as the entire process of appointment was on the
verge of completion, the Respondent JSSC is directed to
proceed in accordance with law by recommending the
names of the successful candidates to the State
Respondent who shall proceed further by issuing
appointment letters to the successful candidates including
these petitioners strictly in accordance with law.
16. As a result, these writ applications stand disposed
of, in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A.s, if
any also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Dated:-04 /10 /2024
Amardeep/
AFR/
