Disposed

Jainendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Pr Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms

Jharkhand HC8 Oct 2018WPC/3070/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking appointment. Directing the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to consider the petitioner's case for appointment based on established qualification equivalence and fulfill other requirements, within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent nos. 6 and 7 to consider petitioner's case for appointment and complete the exercise within 8 weeks.

Jainendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S)No.3070 of 2018

¶3

Jainendra Kumar. … … … …Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶6

The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Department, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶7

The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶8

The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Planning cum Finance Department (Planning Wing), having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶9

The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative Department (Animal Husbandry Wing), having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Town and Dist. Ranchi.

¶10

Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having Its office at Kalinagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶11

Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town and District-Ranchi. … … …Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶14

For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate. For the State: Mrs. Richa Sanchita, S.C. V. For the J.S.S.C.: Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate.

¶15

¶16

05/ 08.10.2018 It has been submitted by Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondents have considered the certificate of the petitioner on legal advice given by the learned Advocate General. It has been considered that certificate of diploma and intermediate both are equivalent and as such case has to be considered and recommendation to that extent was made. Considering the opinion of the Advocate General, Commission has accepted the same and has decided to come with a decision regarding consideration of the case of petitioner as per his fulfilment of requisite qualification on the different posts. Learned Counsel further argues that petitioner is agreed to be appointed on any post subject to fulfilment of the requisite qualification.

¶17

Referring to paragraph No.21,22 and 23 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6 & 7, learned Counsel further argues that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as he has already qualified subject to counselling.

¶18

Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned Counsel appearing for the J.S.S.C. very fairly submits that the case of the petitioner is in active consideration and averment to that effect has already been made in paragraph No.21 to 24 of the counter-affidavit.

¶19

¶20

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration. The only dispute was whether the degree of the petitioner is at par with the intermediate. Upon examining the same and after receiving the opinion of the learned Advocate General even the Commission was of the firm opinion that case of the petitioner needs consideration and if the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualification his case shall be considered for appointment.

¶21

In view of the rival submissions of the parties and in view of the aforesaid observations and on perusal of the relevant documents brought on record and the counter-affidavit filed by the respective parties, I hereby direct the respondent No.6 and 7 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post for which he is found entitled as per his requisite qualification and subject to fulfilment of the certificate other than Amin also.

¶22

Respondents will consider the case of the petitioner as already counselling has been done for publication of the result. The respondents shall offer letter of appointment after four weeks of the publication of the result.

¶23

Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.]

¶26

P.K.S.

Jainendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Pr Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Pr Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisha Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajay Kumar Dwivedi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithlesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Bageshwar Pathak And Ors. Vs Rural Dev Dept

Raj Vivekanand Marandi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary School Education and Literacy Department