Dismissed

Annu Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary

Jharkhand HC17 Nov 2022WPC/150/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging 100% reservation for Scheduled District candidates in Class-III and Class-IV appointments. Relying on Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 and prior orders, the court held that the identical issue has been resolved by the Apex Court and this petition is disposed of in terms thereof.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 and this Court's order in W.P.(C) No. 1768 of 2019.

Annu Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

[1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 150 of 2020

¶4

Annu Kumari, aged about 39 years, wife of Brajbhushan Prasad Sinha, resident of Sector-4, Qr. No. 2181, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S. Sector-4, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶5

Rabbana Bano, aged about 28 years, wife of Riyaz Ansari, resident of Budhiakhad Purani Mohalla, P.O. S.P. Colliery, P.S. Giridih (M), District Giridih, Jharkhand.

¶6

Sandeep Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of Mohan Mahto, resident of village Bosobar, P.O. & P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, Jharkhand.

¶7

Kalachand Kumar, aged about 26 years, son of Biru Manjhi, resident of Piparkudar, P.O. Kumardaga, P.S. Chandankyari, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶8

Nakul Kumar Majhi, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Bagam Kumar Majhi, resident of Piparkudar, P.O. Kumardaga, P.S. Chandankyari, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶9

Gaytri Kumari, aged about 30 years, wife of Prabhat Ranjan Tiwari, resident of village Karua Kala, P.O. Dumariya, P.S. & District Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶10

Niraj Prasad, aged about 31 years, son of Sundar Saw, resident of village Kharsota, P.O. Morbey, P.S. Manjhiaon, District Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶11

Gorakhnath Vishwakarma, aged about 34 years, son of Girja Shankar, resident of village & P.O. Kathar Kalan, P.S. Dhurki, District Garhwa, Jharkhand.

¶12

… … Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Jharkhand, through Principal Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi-04, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.

¶15

The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi-04, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶16

The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi-04, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶17

The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi-4, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶18

[2]

¶19

The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkom, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶20

The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), Ranchi, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkom, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶21

… … Respondents

¶22

¶23

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶24

For the Petitioners	------- : Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State	: Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II
For the JSSC	: Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate ----------------------------

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

07 / Dated 17^th November, 2022

¶27

The issue has been raised in the instant writ petition as to whether in the matter of appointment on public post in Class-III and Class-IV of the District Cadre in various departments, can there be 100% reservation for the candidates belonging to scheduled districts, namely, Sahebganj,

¶28

Pakur, Dumka, Jamtara, Latehar, Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Lohardaga, Simdega, East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum and SaraikellaKharsawan.

¶29

It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1387 of 2017 and other allied writ petitions, which have been disposed of vide common judgment and order dated 21.09.2020 against which the Special Leave was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶30

The said order was heard by the Hon'ble Apex Court and after leave having been granted, the same being Civil Appeal No.4038 of 2022, wherein the view taken by this Court, has been affirmed by declaring the impugned Notification/Order dated 14.07.2016 as unconstitutional

¶31

[3]

¶32

and ultra vires of Articles 14, 16(2), 16(3) and 35(a-i) of the Constitution of India. However, at the same time, the directions issued by this Court in the impugned judgment and order while setting aside all the appointments made pursuant to Notification/Order dated 14.07.2016 and Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 dated 28.12.2016 as modified on 04.12.2017 and to go in for fresh/ de novo recruitment process for the Scheduled Areas/Districts was modified to the extent that the appointment already made in the Scheduled Districts Areas, the State shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut-off obtained by the last selected candidates in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to entire State and respective candidates belonging to the non-Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Areas (Districts) shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the candidates.

¶33

Therefore, submission has been made that the instant writ petition since is having the same issue, as such, may be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.08.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the State has also submitted that the instant matter may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶35

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading made in the writ petitions, wherefrom it is evident that the issue has been raised by the writ petitioners questioning the Notification No.14/ -14-01/2015/5938 dated 14.07.2016 and Order issued vide Memo No.5939 dated 14.07.2016, whereby 100% post of

¶36

[4]

¶37

Class-III and Class-IV have been reserved to be filled up from the candidates who belong to Scheduled Districts.

¶38

This Court has perused the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 and found therefrom that the identical issue has been set at rest in the aforesaid judgment, therefore, the instant writ petition is also required to be disposed of in terms thereof.

¶39

This Court has also taken into consideration the order/judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1768 of 2019 and other allied matters disposed of on 31.08.2022 wherein also, this Court, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions, has taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022.

¶40

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the order/judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1768 of 2019 and other allied matters as also taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.08.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022.

¶41

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶42

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

¶43

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶44

Saurabh /

¶45

N.A.F.R.

Annu Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annu Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Ramkrishna Forging Ltd. Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Bo

Sr Prasanna Csst Vs Arbind Kumar

Sushee Infra and Mining Ltd. through Its Vice President Anil Kumar Dutta Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Smt Shaila Devi Alias Shaila Kumar and Anr. Vs Railways

The Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through Prabhat Kumar Srivastava Vs Vexcel Upkram Private Limited

Union of India through the Chief Engineer Military Engineer Services Vs M/S Om Construction through Its Authorized Signatory Mr Raj Kumar Gupta