Dismissed

Sanjay Prakash and Ors. v. Collectariate

Jharkhand HC16 Apr 2019WPC/6766/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that appointing candidates from the lower part of a merit list after higher-ranked candidates were appointed violates Article 14 and discrimination principles. The Court dismissed the petition as the undertaking was complied with regarding existing vacancies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed; the District Commissioner is directed to ensure persons higher in the merit list are not ignored for future recommendations.

Sanjay Prakash and Ors. Vs Collectariate — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 6766 of 2013

¶3

Sanjay Prakash

¶4

Kuldeep Kumar Das

¶5

Chhote Lal Das

¶6

Rajendra Kumar Ram

¶7

Kartik Ram

¶8

Prameshwar Ram

¶9

Praveen Kujur … … Petitioners Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand.

¶11

The Deputy Commissiioner, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

With

¶14

W.P. (S) No. 84 of 2014

¶15

Kamal Kumar Gupta

¶16

Neeraj Kumar

¶17

Ram Sagar Prasad

¶18

Suresh Kumar Bediya

¶19

Koleshwar Kumar Saw

¶20

Bharat Kumar Sharma

¶21

Santosh Kumar Singh

¶22

Ganesh Narayan Gupta

¶23

Randhir Kumar Pandey

¶24

Satish Kumar Mishra

¶25

Abhay Kumar Sinha

¶26

Deepak Kumar

¶27

Dhirendra Kumar

¶28

Pranav Kumar Prakash

¶29

Shailendra Kumar Sharma … … Petitioners Versus

¶30

The State of Jharkhand.

¶31

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

¶32

… … Respondents

¶33

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶34

--For the Petitioner s : Mr. Rajiv Anand, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, G.A. II Mr. Vishal Kr. Singh, A.C. to G.A. II

¶35

15/16.04.2019 : Heard counsels for the parties.

¶36

The Present writ petitions has been filed for direction upon the respondents to consider the candidatures of the petitioner and appoint them on the Class-IV post as their names enlisted in the panel prepared for the Class-IV post.

¶37

As per the pleading, the selection process has been initiated in the year 2010, in which petitioners along with others had participated. A panel had been prepared containing the name of 122 persons. Out of 122 persons 61 persons had been appointed. Some of the persons recommended (within 61), but the department has not considered their claims and as such they have approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 4497 of 2012 and analogous cases.

¶38

Deputy Commissioner has given undertaking before this Court that leftover candidates will be adjusted. On the basis of such undertaking the writ petition has been disposed of directing the respondents to adjust the leftover candidates. The meaning of leftover candidates was clear that the person who was within 1 to 61 and whose case has been recommended but not appointed they have to be appointed against one or another vacancy.

¶39

The petitioners have tried to give different meaning to the word leftover. As per them, the leftover means the person below 61 in the panel i.e. all persons who are in the panel is covered by the expression leftover. Neither the content of the undertaking given by the Deputy Commissioner nor the import of the order of this Court

¶40

dated 20.09.2017 passed in the present writ petition supports contention of petitioner.

¶41

The relevant portion of the earlier order of the present writ petition is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶42

“In view of the earlier order of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 4497/2012 and in the light of the observation made by this Court, I direct the respondent No. 2 to file a specific affidavit as to how many vacancies were at the time of appointment and how many persons have been appointed as on day from the panal which has been brought on record and how many vacancies are still lying arising out the same advertisement. If the Deputy Commissioner has already passed an order for appointment of the left over candidates, the same direction be given to the present petitioners also.”

¶43

Pursuance to this direction a counter affidavit has been filed

¶44

wherein it has been stated that altogether 61 vacancies were existing at the time of advertisement and all the vacancies has been filled up. The life of the panel has also come to an end. It has been further asserted that no person below in the panel has been appointed.

¶45

In view of above submission and the line adopted by this Court in different writ petition, the undertaking given by the District Commissioner stands complied.

¶46

From perusal of facts, it appears that selectively from all the selected candidates up to the Serial No. 122 has been recommended.

¶47

It appears that only because of pendency of the writ petition, a special treatment has been given to the petitioners which is not permissible in the law. Article-14 cannot be violated in the name that they are the petitioners before this Court.

¶48

Appointment has to be made as per the positioning in the panel. Ignoring the persons higher in panel, lower in panel cannot be appointed.

¶49

District Commissioner, Hazaribagh is directed to look into the matter how the persons have been recommended by ignoring the claim of the persons who are higher in the merit list.

¶50

It has been affidavited by the respondents that all the vacancies had been filled up. The further recommendation can’t be made against the vacancies which was not advertised and that too ignoring the positioning in the merit list.

¶51

Be as it may, since no persons below in panel have been appointed so far as petitioners are concerned. This Court finds no merit in the claim raised by the petitioners, accordingly the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶52

I.A if any, stands disposed of.

¶53

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶54

Amar/-

Sanjay Prakash and Ors. v. Collectariate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Prakash and Ors. v. Collectariate

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

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Jauhar Ali Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ajay Kumar Ghosh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sri Niwas Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Kapildeo Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sk.Jainul Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.