Dilip Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2024WPC/3818/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court writ disposed; Home Guard recruitment Garhwa; Advertisement no. 01/2008 – 67 seats advertised vs 23 actual (male 43/female 24 vs male-13/female-10); inadvertence/misconception of sanctioned strength admitted in counter affidavit para-8; legitimate expectation; 2008 process completed in 2009; Advertisement no. 01/2023 selection over; liberty to approach respondent authority; consideration in future fresh appointment; Justice Deepak Roshan; W.P.(S) No. 3818 of 2023; decision 19.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the concerned respondent, who shall decide the issue; their cases to be considered in any future fresh appointment. No immediate appointment or monetary relief granted; I.A., if any, closed. ¶¶37

Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 3818 of 2023

¶3

¶4

(1) Dilip Kumar Yadav aged 35 years, Son of Baleshwar Yadav: Resident of Village-Anchala, P.O.-Soh, P.S. + District - Garhwa.

¶5

(2) Naveen Kumar aged 32 years, Son of Ramu Ram; Resident of Purani Bazar, P.O. + P.S. +District-Garhwa.

¶6

(3) Shyam Bihari Kushwaha aged 39 Years, Son of Late Laichu Mehta; Resident of Bhatti Road, Sonpurwa, P.O. + P.S. + District - Garhwa.

¶7

(4) Punam Devi aged 54 Years, Wife of Virendra Prasad; Resident of Dipuwan Mohalla, P.O.+P.S+District-Garhwa.

¶8

(5) Chanda Kumari Aged 38 Years, Wife of Devendra Baitha, Resident of At & P.O.-Adhoura, P.S.-Nagar Untari, Palhe Kalan & District-Garhwa.

¶9

(6) Punam Devi aged 37 Years, Wife of Shivbachan Goand; Resident of Sonpurwa, P.O. + P.S.+ District - Garhwa

¶10

(7) Amresh Kumar Upadhyay Aged 36 Years, Son of Bhuwaneshwar Upadhyay Resident of Village-Gorheya, P.O.Ranka Bouliya, P.S. & District - Garhwa.

¶11

(8) Ganga Lal Bind aged 38 Years, Son of Ram Lakhan Bind; Resident of At & P.O. Nawada, P.S. + District - Garhwa.

¶12

(9) Baby Kashyap aged 33 Years, daughter of Krishna Kashyap: Resident of Ranki Mohalla, P.O. + P.S. + District - Garhwa. .....Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

(1) The State of Jharkhand

¶15

(2) Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand; Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. + P.S.-Dhurwa & DistrictRanchi.

¶16

(3) Director in Chief- Cum-Chief Commandant, Home Guard Brigade Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office At P.0, P.S. & District - Ranchi

¶17

(4) Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, Office at, P.O, P.S. & District-Garhwa

¶18

(5) Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, Office at, P.O, P.S. & District - Garhwa.

¶19

(6) District Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guard Brigade, Garhwa, Office at, P.O, P.S. & District - Garhwa. ....Respondents

¶20

¶21

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶22

¶23

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Neil Abhijit, A.C to G.A.-V

¶24

¶25

04/19.09.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing and setting aside

¶27

¶28

the Advertisement no. 01/2023 issued by Jharkhand Home Guard Brigade, Garhwa for appointment of Home Guards in the district of Garhwa.

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to Advertisement no. 01/2008, wherein there was indication of 67 seats for appointment and these petitioners have duly appeared in the examination and was selected even in the medical examination, but somehow they were not selected.

¶30

He further draws attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit; especially para-8, and submits that the stand of the respondents taken in the counter affidavit is that inadvertently under the misconception of facts regarding sanctioned strength, the then District Commandant Home Guard Brigade, Garhwa advertised 67 vacancy (male 43, female 24); for the urban area, whereas the actual vacancy for the urban area was only 23 (male-13, and female-10).

¶31

Relying upon this averment made in para-8 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel submits that the petitioners were having legitimate expectation since 67 posts was indicated in the advertisement; as such, their cases may be reconsidered and if the seats are still vacant, they are ready to perform fresh medical test etc.

¶32

4. Learned counsel for the respondent relying upon para 8 of the counter affidavit fairly submits that due to inadvertence; instead of 23 seats, 67 seats were published, but actually there was only 23 seats. He further submits that the process for advertisement was completed in the year 2009 itself. Further, even the new selection process vide advertisement no. 01/2023 is now over, so no relief can be granted to these petitioners, at this stage.

¶33

5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be

¶34

¶35

¶36

sufficed; since the petitioners qualified in the original advertisement in which 67 seats were published in the advertisement, so they would be at liberty to approach the concerned respondent, who shall decide the issue; especially in the case, if in future any fresh appointment is conducted, the petitioners’ case can be considered.

¶37

6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. I.A, if any, stands closed.

¶38

Dilip Kumar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Yadav 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Kajal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Coal Mines Provident Fund Pensioner Samaj through Its Vice President Ram Pravesh Tiwari Vs the Commissioner Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through Its Commissioner

Lakhiram Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhilasha Rani Vs the State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt

Monia Lata Vs the State of Jharkhand

Priya Kumari Vs Union of India