Before :- Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah, JJ.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24188 of 2019 (Arising out of Diary No.16128 of 2019). D/d. 1.10.2019.
Mantu Kumar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
For the Petitioners :- Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Krishnanand Pandeya, Anil Kumar Verma, jayesh Gaurav, Anurag, Hanuman Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Advocates.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. While disposing of Letters Patent Appeal No.426 of 2012 on 28.09.2015, the High Court of Jharkhand found that the present petitioners were not given weightage of 90 marks which was given to similarly situated candidates who were parties before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5342-5343 of 2003. It was observed by the High Court that though the benefit of age relaxation was given, the adequate weightage of 90 marks was denied to the petitioners and in the circumstances, the action on part of the respondents was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court further stated that if the benefit of 90 marks was given to the present petitioners, they would have secured more marks than the candidates who were actually selected. Concluding thus, the High Court directed the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in its order.
3. This decision was affirmed by this Court while disposing of Civil Appeal No.3111/2016 preferred by the State of Jharkhand.
4. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Committee which passed order on 25.07.2018 and stated:
"(1) Committee has made recommendations that four candidates - Mantu Kumar, Ram Babu, Amresh Kumar Singh & Satyendra Prasad Sinha mentioned in the case of Irfan Gani & Others, hold eligibility for selection under category in Merit List of Advertisement No.01/Sachiwalay Pashupalan/ 2004-05, but in compliance of judicial orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court & Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, proceedings for appointments against all the vacant posts advertised in Advertisement No.01/Sachiwalay Pashupalan/2004-05 have already been completed. Thus, on account of non-availability of post for appointment and in the light of the portion "No appointment already made either in the normal course or pursuant to the earlier order of this court shall be disturbed" mentioned in the judicial order passed in Case No.2018/2006 keeping in mind the judicial order concerning with not making any kind of interference or change in appointments made in the abovesaid Advertisement No.1/Sachiwalay/ Pashupalan/2004-05, decision is taken for not considering about appointments of Md. Irfan Gani & Others under the mentioned advertisement.
(2) The claim would be considered on priority basis in the appointments to be made, in future, at the post of Technical Assistant."
5. Two features were thus considered by the Committee: first, non-availability of posts, and, second, the decision that appointments made earlier were not to be disturbed. Even then, according to the Committee, claim of the petitioners was required to be considered on priority basis in case any selection process was to be undertaken in future. Contempt Case No.342 of 2018 filed by the petitioners alleging inaction and non-compliance on part of the respondents was rejected by the High Court, which view is presently under challenge.
6. According to Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, response to an RTI query shows that sufficient number of posts are still lying vacant. However, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits to the contrary.
7. We need not go into this issue as the direction issued by the Committee is very clear that in case any selection is undertaken in future, the claim of the petitioners shall be considered on priority basis.
8. Though we agree with the assessment made by the High Court that there was no contempt of the direction issued by the High Court, in our view, the cases of the petitioners shall be considered as and when any selection is undertaken in future. Needless to say that the petitioners shall be entitled to age relaxation and adequate weightage of 90 marks as stated above.
9. With these observations, the special leave petition stands disposed of.
