Disposed

Ranu Kumari Sharma v. Agriculture Department

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2019WPC/3291/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interlocutory application to correct the date of an annexure. The writ petition was disposed of after directing the respondent authorities to verify the petitioner's caste status and pass a reasoned order if no lapses are found, relying on the Anil Tanti judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 4 to verify petitioner's caste and pass a reasoned order; No appointment allowed in this order.

Ranu Kumari Sharma Vs Agriculture Department — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 3291 OF 2012

¶3

-----

¶4

Ranu Kumari Sharma, wife of Sudhir Sharma, Resident of Bara Sekhpura, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District-Deoghar.

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi.

¶8

2.The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative and Raj Bhasa Department Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.s.Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶9

3.Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶10

4.Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O, P.S. and DistrictDeoghar.

¶11

5.Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar, P.O, P.S. and DistrictDeoghar. ... Respondents

¶12

-----

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.P-III

¶15

-----

¶16

Order No. 07 : Dated 15^th July, 2019

¶17

Heard Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C to G.P.-III appearing for the respondent-State.

¶18

The interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 2645 of 2012 has been filed for correction of the date of Annexure-2 which is inadvertently typed as 08.01.2012 instead of 30.01.2012. This defect is due to typographical error and the nature of the case will not be changed and as such the prayer made in this interlocutory application is allowed.

¶19

The petitioner is directed to make necessary correction in course of day. I.A. No. 2645 of 2012 is disposed.

¶20

W.P.(S) No. 3291 of 2012.

¶21

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Village Level Worker in the department of Agriculture and Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand.

¶22

Mr. Pradhan appearing for the petitioner submits that the advertisement published in local newspaper, invited applications for eligible candidate for appointment on the post of Village Level Worker under the Department of Agriculture and Cane Development, Government of Jharkhand. Pursuant to such advertisement the petitioner has applied for the post of Village Level Worker. Accordingly, the admit card and roll number of the petitioner has been issued. The petitioner appeared in the written selection test and was declared successful having been secured 254 marks out of 360.

¶23

To substantiate his argument the petitioner draws attention of this Court at Annexurer-2, which is the selection list in which the name of the petitioner finds figure at Serial No. 14. He further submits that at the time of advertisement the sub-caste of the petitioner “Barai” (Carpenter) was included in the category of OBC-II and as such the petitioner has applied for the post of Village Level Worker under the candidature of OBC-II and she has also submitted the caste certificate.

¶24

Mr. Pradhan further submits that through internet she came to know that she has been declared successful.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-

¶26

State submits that the petitioner belonging to sub-caste

¶27

“Barai” (Carpenter) by caste which comes within the OBC-I, but the petitioner has produced the certificate under OBC-II and as the petitioner submitted the caste certificate OBC-II, hence, her name does not appear in the revised merit list in OBC-I, thereafter, the petitioner has filed the representation and the same has been rejected.

¶28

Mr. Pradhan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that at the time of filing of application there was no criteria of OBC-I and OBC-II. He further submits that at the time of advertisement she was under OBC-II, subsequently the State Government by notification vide memo no. 6580 dated 20.10.2011, the petitioner was shifted to “Barai” caste under the OBC-II to OBC-I. He further submits that there is no latches on the part of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner has applied OBC-II and after publication of the result the Government came forwarded with the above notifications by which the petitioner has been placed to OBC-I. Further, once the game is started the authorities had got no power to change the game of the rule and he relied upon a decision in the case of Anil Tanti Vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S) No. 1630 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2017 in which the coordinate Bench of this Court considering the various aspect of the matter and directed the authorities to accept the caste certificate of the petitioner and declare the results accordingly. It was further directed that if the petitioner is formed well within the zone of consideration, consider the candidature by accepting the caste certificate and

¶29

publish the result. He further stated in paragraph no. 10 of the supplementary affidavit that four posts are still vacant.

¶30

Be that as it may, it transpires that at the time of advertisement caste of the petitioner under OBC-II and as such the petitioner has applied on that category and after the publication of the results the petitioner’s caste has been shifted from the category of OBC-II to OBC-I and as such there is no latches on the part of the petitioner and in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Anil Tanti (Supra), the case of the petitioner is needs to be considered in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 is directed to consider the caste of the petitioner and pass a reasoned/speaking order and if on verification everything is found correct then necessary order will be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. The connected application (I.A. No. 2645 of 2012) shall also stand disposed of.

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶33

Amardeep/-

Ranu Kumari Sharma v. Agriculture Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranu Kumari Sharma v. Agriculture Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baldeo Prasad Jaiswal Vs Provident Fund Commissioner

Umanand Roy Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Umanand Roy Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Akshaibat Prasad And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Dr Ram Prakash Verma and Ors. Vs Health

Kavilas Prasad Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.