Dismissed

Misbahul Hasan v. Drinking Water And Sanitation

Jharkhand HC23 Mar 2022WPC/4107/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order terminating his appointment as a disabled Block Coordinator. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to participate in the new selection process mandated by revised Government guidelines, thus failing to establish any illegality or discrimination.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.

Misbahul Hasan Vs Drinking Water And Sanitation — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.4107 of 2016

¶3

Misbahul Hasan ... ... ... Petitioner

¶4

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur 3. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Pakur

¶6

The Commissioner, State Disability Commission, Jharkhand Sector-III, Engineers Hostel, Dhurwa, Ranchi ... Respondents

¶7

---------

¶8

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

¶9

(Through : Video Conferencing)

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, AC to SC

¶11

¶12

09/ 23.03.2022 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 11.05.2013 (Annexure-12). Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to continue to work on the post of Block Coordinator, Pakur.

¶13

The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An advertisement being Advertisement dated 27.09.2006 was floated by the District Water and Sanitation Committee, Pakur for appointment to various posts including the post of Block Coordinator on contract basis. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, who is a disabled person, being eligible, applied for the post of Block Coordinator and after due selection, process, he was appointed to the said post on contract basis for the financial year, 2007-08. Thereafter, his contract was extended from time to time and the petitioner was working with the utmost satisfaction of the respondents authorities. All of a sudden, on 19.02.2011, the petitioner was served with order of termination, by which his services to the said post came to be end from 31.03.2011 as the period of services was extended up to only 31.03.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner represented before the respondents, but no heed was paid and as such, earlier he had been approached this Court by filling a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3008/2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2013, with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law. In compliance thereof, the respondent vide impugned order dated 15.05.2013 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner could not be appointed by Member Secretary, District Water and Sanitation Mission due to new Guidelines of Govt. of India pursuant to which the State Government has established BRC in every district and in every district NGO has outsource Block

¶14

¶15

Resource Centre and after establishment of BRC in every district, services of all Block Coordinator appointed earlier has already been terminated and further, the BRC has already appointed Block Coordinators in six blocks, therefore, there is no vacancy in the said post and the respondents are not Competent Authority to appoint the Block Coordinator and BRC has already completed the appointment process, therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed. Hence, the petitioner has constrained to knock the door of this Court, challenging the order dated 11.05.2013.

¶16

Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 11.05.2013 on the ground that earlier total five Block Coordinators including the petitioner were working on contractual basis, out of which, four Block Coordinators were regularized by BRC, but the services of the petitioner only has been terminated by the respondent No.3 and as such, there is discrimination on the part of the respondents and the respondents have adopted pick and choose method. He further submits that impugned order is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable as the petitioner being a disabled person has been denied continuation in service, which is illegal and arbitrary.

¶17

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed.

¶18

Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contract /honorarium basis for the financial year, 2007-08 and the period was extended up to 31.03.2011 and as such, petitioner has no right to claim his continuation on the post after expiry of the period. She further submits that after the expiry of the contract period, he was further ordered to join to the said post in view of the work exigency vide order dated 08.06.2011, but the petitioner did not join at Hiranpur Block and thereafter twice letters were issued through registered post, but the petitioner did not receive and respond the same. Thereafter, the Govt. of India has issued a new guidelines by which the State Government established BRC in every district and by following the said guideline, in every district NGO has outsourced BRC and as such, all Block Coordinators appointed earlier have been terminated and BRC has already appointed Block Coordinator in six Blocks, there is no vacancy in the said post. She further submits that there is no discrimination and no pick and choose method has been adopted by the respondents as similarly situated persons, whose services were terminated, appeared and participated in the appointment process of BRC pursuant to the advertisement, but the petitioner did not participate in the appointment process of BRC and as such, there is no

¶19

¶20

illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶21

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 for the following facts and reasons:-

¶22

a) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is discrimination and pick and choose method adopted by the respondents is not at all acceptable to this Court as the other similarly situated persons, who were working as the post Block Coordinators appeared and participated in the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement published by the BRC, but the petitioner did not participate in the selection process.

¶23

b) Admittedly, as per the new Guidelines of Govt. of India, BRC is competent Authority to appoint Block Coordinators and BRC has already completed the appointment process for the said post in which the petitioner did not participate and as such, no right accrued to the petitioner to continue to the said post.

¶24

c) The petitioner was given ample opportunity to appear in the selection process so that he may be appointed, but it was the petitioner himself, who did not appear in the same.

¶25

d) From perusal of the records, it appears that disability was never made a ground for not appointing or not allowing the petitioner to continue on the said post

¶26

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and observation, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶27

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶28

punit

Misbahul Hasan v. Drinking Water And Sanitation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Misbahul Hasan v. Drinking Water And Sanitation

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

Ramji Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of School Eduation and Literacy Development

Payal Raj Vs Personnel And Adminis Reform

Baju Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Jha And Ors. Vs Finance

Srikant Das Vs Education

Kailash Thakur Vs Managing Director Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Ltd.