Disposed

Mithlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC8 Oct 2018WPC/385/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking appointment as Forest Guard after qualifying above cut-off marks but being excluded from successful list. Court directed petitioner to submit representation with specific certificates within two weeks for reconsideration by authorities.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file representation with caste and residential certificates within two weeks; respondents to pass reasoned order within four weeks and issue appointment offer if fit.

Mithlesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S).No. 385 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Mithilesh Kumar.

¶5

… … … ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus -

¶7

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajyabhasha Department through its Secretary, Ranchi.

¶9

Forest, Environment & Climate Change Department through its Secretary, Ranchi.

¶10

Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, Ranchi.

¶11

Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi. … … ... …. Respondents

¶12

---------- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shubham Mishra, AC to GP-I For the JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate

¶13

¶14

08/ 08.10.2018 Heard the parties.

¶15

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for consideration of his case for appointment to the post of Forest Guard, pursuant to Advt. No. 3/2014 (Jharkhand Forest Guard Competitive Examination-2014).

¶16

3. The facts of the case in short is that an advertisement being Advt. No. 3/2014 was floated by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (for short “JSSC”) for appointment to the post of Forest Guards. The petitioner having the requisite qualification, applied for the same and he was allotted Roll No. 14243159 under BC-I category for Chatra district. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he appeared in all the events and was declared successful but surprisingly, his name did not figure in the list of successful candidates for appointment to the post of Forest Guard. When the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of successful candidates, the petitioner made representation before the respondentauthorities for consideration of this case, as he has qualified in all the events and obtained 51.57% marks, which is higher than the cut-off marks fixed as 47.27% but no heed was paid to the said representation and as such, the petitioner was constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶17

4. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that petitioner has secured more marks than the cut-off marks as fixed by the respondent-JSSC, inasmuch as the petitioner has obtained 51.57% marks, whereas, the cut-off marks fixed by the respondent-JSSC was 47.27%

¶18

¶19

only and as such, the petitioner ought to have been appointed to the post of Forest Guard but inadvertently or with some ill-motive, the name of the petitioner was not published in the list of successful candidates. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner was declared successful in all the events and have secured more marks than the cut-off marks fixed by the respondent-JSSC and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. Further, it was argued that in the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 04.09.2018, the respondents have realized their mistake and as such, a direction be given for correcting the list and for publication of the result of the petitioner, if at all he has secured more marks than the cut-off marks fixed by the respondentauthorities.

¶20

5. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondentJSSC very fairly submits that in para-7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 04.09.2018, the respondents have already mentioned that the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent-JSSC in terms of the notice vide Annexure-5 of the writ application, subject to submission of caste certificate as well as residential certificates in proper proforma as mentioned in Annexure-5 of the writ petition.

¶21

6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Since, learned counsel for the respondents have candidly mentioned in the supplementary counter-affidavit that if the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of Annexure-5, the same shall be considered and if the petitioner has submitted the caste certificate as well as residential certificate, as per terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement and also in view of the fact that certificates were issued prior to 15.03.2017 and by a competent authority, as mentioned in the advertisement, the same shall be considered and if it is found that case of the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Forest Guards, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and as per terms and conditions of the advertisement, since the petitioner has already qualified in all the events and secured more marks than the cut-off marks fixed 47.27% in BC-I category.

¶22

7. Since the respondents have mentioned in the counter-affidavit for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondent-authorities taking all the points and annexing the caste certificate of BC-I category issued prior to 15.03.2017, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon

¶23

¶24

receipt of the said representation, the respondent shall consider same and pass reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶25

8. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found fit for appointment, an offer of appointment shall be issued to him within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶26

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶28

kunal/-

Mithlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

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

Bageshwar Pathak And Ors. Vs Rural Dev Dept

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

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