Shreya Kumari Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A. No. 425 of 2024

¶3

With

¶4

I.A. No. 7535 of 2024

¶5

----------

¶6

Shreya Kumari Tirkey, aged about 29 years, Daughter of Sukhi Oraon, Resident of Quarter no. 17/4, University Colony, Bariatu, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu & District Ranchi. … … Writ Petitioner / Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 4^th floor Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶10

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman having its office at Circular Road, P.O., P.S. Lalpur & District Ranchi.

¶11

The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission having its office at Circular Road, P.O., P.S. Lalpur& District Ranchi.

¶12

… … Respondents / Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶15

¶16

For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate For the Resp. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, Advocate For the Resp. JPSC : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Durgesh Agarwal. Advocate

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

02/Dated: 3^rd September, 2024

¶19

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.:

¶20

I.A. No. 7535 of 2024:

¶21

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 32 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

¶22

Page 1 of 8

¶23

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-respondents.

¶24

3. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellantsrespondents and considering the statements made in the delay condonation application, is of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

¶25

4. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 32 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

¶26

L.P.A. No. 425 of 2024:

¶27

Prayer:

¶28

1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 773 of 2023 by which the candidature of the writ petitioner has been rejected since she has not appeared for her medical examination in lieu of the notice published in the daily newspaper as appended in Annexure-5.

¶29

Factual Matrix:

¶30

2. The brief facts as per the pleadings is required to be enumerated as hereinunder:

¶31

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as JPSC) issued an advertisement no. 01/2021 for appointment in different departments of the State of Jharkhand like in Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbasha, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Department of Urban Development and Housing etc. in different post/subjects.

¶32

The appellant-writ petitioner, being eligible and possessing the requisite qualification, fulfilling the criteria, had applied for appointment on the advertised posts/vacancies.

¶33

Page 2 of 8

¶34

The JPSC issued the admit cards for all the candidates to appear in Preliminary Examination which was to be held on 19.09.2021, the appellant-writ petitioner appeared and successfully qualified the said examination. Thereafter, the appellant-writ petitioner qualified the mains examination.

¶35

The respondent JPSC issued e-call letter for the document verification and interview, which was to be held on 14.05.2022 and 15.05.2022 respectively and the appellant-writ petitioner appeared for both.

¶36

The respondent JPSC issued a press release in relation to the concerned advertisement. It has been mentioned in the aforesaid press release that the final result of the concerned advertisement has already been published and the document verification and interview of the selected candidates have also taken place between 08.05.2022 to 16.05.2022. Further, in Clause 3 of the said press release it has been mentioned that the medical test of the selected candidates would be held on the very next day.

¶37

The appellant under the belief that since the last date for interviews and document verification was on 16.05.2022, the medical test was to be conducted on 17.05.2022 and thus she on 17.05.2022 went to the concerned office for the medical test, however there was no test being conducted and the petitioner came back.

¶38

On 21.05.2022, the appellant came to know that some candidates, including her, had missed their medical test and immediately thereafter, the appellant agitated her grievances before the office of the respondent JPSC requesting them to conduct her medical test. However, no heed was paid to such request.

¶39

3. It is evident from the factual aspects that the appellant-writ petitioner had participated in the process of selection in Jharkhand

¶40

Page 3 of 8

¶41

Combined Civil Services Examination, 2021 being advertisement No. 01/2021 conducted by the JPSC in which she has found to be successful in the written examination. The JPSC, through press release, has communicated all the successful candidates of written examination who have appeared for document verification and interview, to participate in medical examination on the following day of interview. The petitioner could not be able to participate for medical examination alleged to be as instructed in the press release as under Annexure-5, rather, she had appeared after a gap of one day and hence her candidature has been rejected.

¶42

4. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved by such decision, has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 773 of 2023. The learned Single Judge has considered the ground as was agitated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also considered the plea taken by the JPSC wherein it has been stated that the appellant-writ petitioner has failed to comply with the instruction issued for her medical examination as per the press release as appended in Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

¶43

5. The learned Single Judge, on lack of submission, has refused to pass a positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

¶44

Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant:

¶45

6. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellantwrit petitioner has submitted by referring to Annexure-5, which according to him, suffers from ambiguity. It has been submitted that if the Instruction no. 2 and 3, particularly Instruction no. 3, will be read out, it suffers from vagueness. One or the other candidates had been directed to participate in the medical examination on the following day of the interview. However, if the condition stipulated under Instruction No. 2 will be considered, the date of interview was from 09.05.2022 to 16.05.2022 and if the condition as stipulated

¶46

Page 4 of 8

¶47

under Instruction No. 3 will be considered, one or the other candidate has been directed to ensure appearance for medical examination on the following day of the interview. The contention has been made that since the date of the interview is from 09.05.2022 to 16.05.2022 and as such in the bona fide, the writ petitioner has considered herself to appear before the medical examination on the conclusion of the interview in entirety that is after 16.05.2022 hence she had appeared on 17.05.2022 instead of 16.05.2022.

¶48

7. The learned Senior Counsel, based upon the ground, has submitted that the writ petitioner has got the marks in the higher side and due to a bona fide mistake her candidature has been rejected which should not have been penalized by cancelling/rejecting her candidature.

¶49

8. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact in right perspective, therefore the present lis.

¶50

Submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent JPSC:

¶51

9. Per conta, Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the JPSC has submitted by defending the impugned order wherein the ground has been taken by the learned Single Judge by negating the plea of vagueness as was argued to be available in the Annexure-5.

¶52

10. It has been submitted that, if very specifically, the aforesaid press release, appended as Annexure-5 will be seen, particularly the Instruction No. 3 wherein it has been stated that one of the other candidate is required to appear for medical examination in the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi on the following day of the interview. The date of the interview of the writ petitioner was 15.05.2022 and as such, as per the condition stipulated under Instruction No. 3, the date of medical examination will be 16.05.2022, on which she had not

¶53

Page 5 of 8

¶54

appeared, rather she appeared on 17.05.2022. Her candidature was marked to be absent and based upon that her candidature was rejected, since her name has not been notified in the names of the successful candidates.

¶55

11. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and considering the said mistake of the writ petitioner not to be bona fide, rather it is a negligent and in absence of the due diligence and if on that account the learned Single Judge has came to the conclusion by declining to pass positive direction, it cannot be said to be suffer from an error.

¶56

12. It has been contended that the recruitment process has already concluded way back in the year 2022 and there is no vacancy at all, hence on that account also there cannot be any consideration for appointment of the writ petitioner.

¶57

Analysis:

¶58

13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.

¶59

14. The undisputed fact in this case is that the petitioner although has been found to be successful in the written examination and after participating in the interview, she was to appear for her medical examination as per the schedule of date notified by virtue of the press release as appended in Annexure-5 of the paper book, wherein one or the other candidate has been communicated for participating in the medical examination as per the condition stipulated under Instruction No. 2 and 3. For ready reference, both the instructions are being referred hereinbelow which reads under as:

¶60

मशः “2 सा्ቌा्ሹ ार हेतु सफल उ्ቜ ीदवार ोंका अभिलेख स्ቓ ापन्ቅ भदनाोंक 08.05.2022 सेभदनाोंक - 15.05.2022 तकपूवााहन 10:00 बजेसेएवों सा्ቌा्ሹ ार्ቅ मशः भदनाोंक -09.05.2022 सेभदनाोंक 16.05.2022 तकपूवााहन 09:30 बजेसेआय गकायाालयमेंभनर्ााररतहै।

¶61

Page 6 of 8

¶62

3 सा्ቌा्ሹ ारमेंस्म्ቜ भलतअ्ቜ भथाय ोंका्ቭ ाኚᮌजााँचअगलेभदनसदर अ्ቢ ताल , रााँची मेंभनर्ााररत भकया गया है , जहााँउप्मथथत ह ना सुभनभित करेंगे।“

¶63

15. It is evident from the aforesaid instruction that the stipulation has been made making requirement for one or the other candidate participating in the interview to present before the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi for medical examination.

¶64

16. The requirement, as per Annexure 5, is that the following day of the date of interview one or the other candidate had to appear before the concerned Hospital.

¶65

17. The admitted position herein is that the date of interview of the appellant-writ petitioner was 15.05.2022, as would appear from the Annexure-4 of the paper book and as such the instruction stipulated in the press release, the writ petitioner was to appear on the scheduled date in the Sadar Hospital, Ranchi i.e., on 16.05.2022, but the admitted case of the appellant-writ petitioner is that she had not appeared on 16.05.2022, rather, appeared on 17.05.2022.

¶66

However, the aforesaid fact of her appearance on 17.05.2022 has also been disputed by learned counsel for the JPSC. Contention has been made that even accepting the case of writ petitioner that she had appeared on 17.05.2022, even then no benefit can be granted to her due to non-compliance of the instruction as floated by way of the press release, in which the requirement has been made for appearance for medical examination on the following day of the interview.

¶67

18. Therefore, the vital requirement of medical examination, since has not been performed, which led the Commission in rejecting the candidature.

¶68

19. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the aforesaid fact and taken into consideration the specific condition stipulated in the said

¶69

Page 7 of 8

¶70

press release, is of the view that the writ petitioner cannot be granted any relief.

¶71

20. Further, for the reason that the selection process has already been concluded after issuance of offer of the appointment and as such on that account also no relief can be granted to the appellant-writ petitioner since once the recruitment process has already been concluded and it has been informed that subsequent thereto, a fresh advertisement has also been published by JPSC and as per the settled law that even if the vacancies are available, but after closure of the recruitment process, such available vacancies will be merged in the subsequent advertisement.

¶72

21. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the order impugned by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffer from an error.

¶73

22. Accordingly, the instant appeal being L.P.A. No. 425 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶74

23. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶75

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

¶76

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶77

Samarth / A.F.R.

¶78

Page 8 of 8

Shreya Kumari Tirkey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreya Kumari Tirkey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bla Projects Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Telukula Krishna Shahu Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Deptt of Transport

Sursarita Vanijya Private Ltd. Thro Its Power of Attorney Holder v K Bhalotia Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax

Bijay Kumar Ray Vs State of Jharkhand

Umaayush Multicom Pvt. Ltd. Thro One of Its Driectors Shri Lalan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Central Coal Field Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Jobi Vp Vs Basanti Bai

M/S Jyoti Stone Works (a Proprietorship Concern) Thro Its Proprietor Namely Jagdish Prasad Narsaria Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of State Tax