Disposed

Sumit B Binha v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2019WPC/1909/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand treated a writ petition challenging an advertisement for Staff Nurse posts without ST reservation as a representation petition. It directed the respondents to consider the petition, allow supplementary documents, provide a hearing, and pass a reasoned order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to annex documents within two weeks; respondents to consider case, allow hearing, and pass reasoned order within six weeks.

Sumit B Binha Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S).No. 1909 of 2019

¶3

¶4

Sumit B Binha … … Petitioner

¶5

State of Jharkhand & Ors.

¶6

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

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Chandra Prabha, SC-I

¶8

Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, AC to SC-I

¶9

03/ 19.06.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-State.

¶10

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the advertisement No. 980 dated 09.03.2019 (Annexure-1), for filling-up the post of Staff Nurse Grade-A, whereby no post is shown to be reserved for S.T. Category, which is directly in teeth of the notification dated 25.02.2019, which provides for 26% reservation to S.T. Category candidates.

¶11

Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith declare and provide adequate number of post to be filled-up from amongst the S.T. Category strictly in terms of the notification dated 25.02.2019.

¶12

It is further prayed that respondent be restrained from making any appointment pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement since no post of S.T. Category is reserved.

¶13

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the representation of the petitioner is pending, the respondents have neither paid any heed to it nor any order has been passed on his pending representation. Learned counsel further submits that suffice it would be if the present writ petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner and a direction be given to the respondents-authorities to pass a reasoned order on his pending representation.

¶14

Though no counter-affidavit has been filed, but Mrs. Chandra Prabha, learned SC-I appearing for the respondent-State has no objection if the present writ petition is treated as representation and if a direction is

¶15

¶16

given the by this Court, the representation of the petitioner will be considered and reasoned order will be passed on his pending representation.

¶17

In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, let this writ petition be treated as representation of the petitioner and further, the petitioner is free to annex any other documents upon which he is relying, other than what has been annexed in the present writ petition, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same alongwith the copy of the present writ petition, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner after providing ample opportunity of hearing to him and thereafter, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner.

¶18

It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits, as prayed for, the same may be extended to him within a further period of three weeks.

¶19

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

¶20

kunal/-

Sumit B Binha v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit B Binha v. the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

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

Lalita Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ajit Kumar Panigrahi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Revenue Registration and Land Reforms Deptt

Basudeo Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Gupta Vs Home Department

Dr Radha Kant Kunwar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

Sukriti Prasad Mandal And Ors. Vs Human Resources Department