Writ petition challenging non-issuance of appointment letter despite appearance in counselling. Court dismissed the petition holding vacancy was exhausted and petitioner's marks were below the cut-off.
Writ petition stands dismissed; no direction to issue appointment letter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.1675 of 2016
Suman Kumar Ray
... ... ... Petitioner
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK (Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to SC-V
08/ 05.04.2022 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner in pursuance to the counselling dated 13.12.2015, conducted by the respondents.
The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An advertisement being Advertisement No.1/2015-16 was floated by the respondents for appointment to the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher under two categories i.e. Para Teacher and Non Para Teacher. Pursuant to the same, petitioner having the requisite qualification, applied under the Para Teacher category for the District of Bokaro and other districts and also under disabled category. As per the merit list, he was called for and appeared in 8th counselling held in the district of Bokaro on 13.12.2015 and submitted all the relevant documents before the respondents for verification. Subsequently, 9th provisional merit list was declared by the respondent with regard to District of Bokaro in which it appears that since the petitioner had already appeared in the counselling, his name did not appear in any other district or also Bokaro since in the remarks column, against his name it was mentioned that counselling done. Thereafter, appointment letter was issued to all the selected candidates, but till date the appointment letter has not been issued in favour of the petitioner and as such, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the 8th counselling, a provisional list for the district of Bokaro was prepared and against the name of the petitioner, it was mentioned that counselling has been done and the petitioner has obtained 53.24 marks, but till date appointment letter has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. He further
2
submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents filed its counter-affidavit in which they have stated that inadvertently, the name of the petitioner was shown in the column of selected list. The fact remaining that up to the 8th counselling, the vacancy under the handicapped category was exhausted and vacancy became zero in the 8th counselling and as such, due to the publication of his name in the final merit list, she became ineligible to appear in other districts for counsel and as such, petitioner shall not be made to suffer for the fault of respondents. Learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction may be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment.
Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed.
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that up to the 8th counselling, remaining 4 vacancies under handicapped category exhausted, but due to mistake, the name of the petitioner was shown in the column of selected against his marks 53.24, whereas cut off marks in his category was 55.40 % and once it came into the knowledge of the respondents, mistake was rectified and petitioner was duly informed about the mistake and as such, the grievances of the petitioner has already been redressed and information was given vide letter dated 09.02.2017.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in view of the statement made by the respondents in the counteraffidavit that under the handicapped category, vacancy was zero at the time of counselling and the petitioner has secured less marks than the last selected candidate under his category and as such, petitioner cannot be appointed, the said fact was also informed to the petitioner that due to mistake his name was mentioned in the selected list. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the mistake of the respondents, he cannot be made to suffer, is also not accepted by this Court in view of the fact that the petitioner was duly informed by the respondents after rectification that no vacancy was there and petitioner had obtained 53.24 marks, whereas last selected candidate in his category has obtained 55.40 % marks. There is no merit in the instant case.
Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
punit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an appointment letter in violation of merit list cut-offs.
Whether the revision of the selection list by the respondents does not create a right to appointment.
Suman Kumar Ray
The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand
The Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Bokaro
The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro
Dr. S.N. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
