Dismissed¶31

Jitram Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Home

Jharkhand HC11 Mar 2024WPC/3969/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(S) 3969 of 2023; Jitram oraon vs State of Jharkhand; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; 11.03.2024; Jharukash; Jharkhand Armed Police; advertisement no. 01 of 2015; final selection list 31.03.2016; termination notification no. 3646 dated 23.06.2016; three-man enquiry committee report 15.04.2016 (Annexure-C); chest short by 6 cm; re-measurement; joining not accepted; rejoining attempt 13.04.2021; W.P.(S) 3976 of 2016 Dikesh Kumaar reinstatement order 08.09.2019 (also referred as 08.11.2019 in prayer); W.P.(S) 5184 of 2021 Sujeet Kumar allowed 18.08.2022, candidature rejected 13.10.2023; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On totality of facts, the petitioner's case is not covered by the judgment in WPS No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases. ¶30

Jitram Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Home — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's case is covered by the judgment in WP (S) No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases (reinstatement with consequential benefits), so as to oblige the respondents to accept his joining. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

On totality of facts, the petitioner's case is not covered by the judgment in WPS No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Reason: the petitioner was remeasured and the discrepancy in measurement was recorded in the enquiry report dated 15.04.2016 (Annexure-C).

¶30

Key takeaways

Reason: the petitioner was never allowed to join even at the initial stage and admittedly never received any salary, unlike the writ petitioners in WPS No. 3976 of 2016 who joined, underwent training and received regular salary.ratio¶30
Further reason: the petitioner produced no appointment letter or joining letter and did not even mention his initial date of joining in the writ petition.ratio¶30
The Court is not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for in the writ petition; the parity claimed with Sujeet Kumar (W.P.(S) No. 5184 of 2021) fails because that candidate's candidature was ultimately declined on re-measurement.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law / recruitment — Jharkhand Armed Police, advertisement no. 01 of 2015, post of 'Jharukash': petitioner selected in final selection list dated 31.03.2016 but joining never accepted; selection cancelled after three-man enquiry committee (report dated 15.04.2016, Annexure-C) recorded his chest 6 cm short on remeasurement. Held: petitioner's case is not covered by the reinstatement judgment in W.P.(S) No. 3976 of 2016 (Dikesh Kumaar), because unlike those writ petitioners who joined, trained and drew salary, he was never allowed to join, admittedly never received salary, and placed no appointment or joining letter on record, nor even his date of joining. Claimed parity with W.P.(S) No. 5184 of 2021 (Sujeet Kumar) also failed — that candidate's candidature was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2023 after re-measurement. Writ petition dismissed (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., 11.03.2024).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 3969 of 2023

¶3

Jitram oraon, aged about 30 years, S/O Litu Oraon, R/O vill:- Burhu Baratpur, P.O- Hirhi, P.S- Lohardaga, Dist- Lohardaga, Jharkhand, 835302 … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S- Jagarnathpur, Dist- Ranchi.

¶6

1. The secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O- Dhurwa, P.SJagarnathpur, Dist- Ranchi.

¶7

The Director General of police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi.

¶8

The Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand Ranchi, having office at Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi.

¶9

The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, having office at Dhurwa, P.O & P.S- Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi

¶10

The Commandant, State Industrial Security Force, Having its office at Camp Jharkhand Armed Police- 4, P.O & P.S- Bokaro, District-Bokaro

¶11

The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police- 9, Sahibgaj- cumChairman, Recruitment Board, having its office at Jharkhand Armed Police Camp, Hotwar, P.O- Hotwar, P.S- Khelgaon, DistRanchi. … … Respondents

¶12

--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, A.C. to A.G.

¶14

¶15

07 /11.03.2024 Heard the Learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶17

“I. For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order orders, direction / directions in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly the respondent no. 6 to accept the joining of the petitioner since the notification no. 3646 dated 23.06.2016, by which the services of petitioner and others were terminated has already been set aside by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(S) 3976 of 2016 (Dikesh Kumaar and ors. vs State of Jharkhand) with other analogous cases, vide order dated 08.11.2019.

¶18

II. For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order / orders, direction / directions in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of 'Jharukash'.”

¶19

¶20

3. The case of the petitioner as per the writ petition is that the petitioner had participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement no. 01 of 2015 for appointment on the post of cook, water carrier, barber, washerman and Jharukash under Jharkhand Armed Police and got selected in final selection list dated 31.03.2016 as Jharukash and joined his duty. All of a sudden, vide notification no. 3646 dated 23.06.2016 the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of irregularities committee by a few persons. The termination letter was challenged in writ petition being WP (S) No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases and vide order dated 08.09.2019 the termination order was set-aside and all the writ petitioners were reinstated on their original post with consequential benefits and thereafter, if so advised, the state could examine each case separately on its own merits and proceed accordingly. Thereafter the respondents issued notices upon the candidates for rejoining at their respective place of posting and the petitioner appeared before the respondent no.6 for rejoining on 13.04.2021 but they were not accepting the joining of the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

¶21

4. As per the counter affidavit, after the selection process the results were published on 31.03.2016 where the petitioner was declared successful and was directed to report before the commandant state industrial security force and the list dated 01.04.2016 was also sent but mass irregularities were reported in the selection process and a three man enquiry committee was constituted for verification and measurement of height and chest of the respective candidates and during verification it was found that the petitioner’s chest was short by 6 cm which was less than the minimum requirement as per the advertisement . The committee report dated 15.04.2016 is contained in annexure-C to the counter affidavit. This report led to cancellation of the entire selection process and such decision was challenged in WP (S) No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases and vide order dated 08.09.2019 the termination order was set-aside and all the writ petitioners were reinstated on their original post with consequential benefits and thereafter, if so advised, the state could examine each case separately on its own merits and proceed accordingly. It has been

¶22

¶23

specifically stated in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s joining was never accepted by the appointing authority for the discrepancies in the chest measurement prior to the order passed by the High Court. It has been asserted that the case of the petitioner is not covered by aforesaid writ petition being WP (S) No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases .

¶24

5. A rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit and paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit has been replied in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder wherein the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the petitioner was discharging his duty till 23.06.2016 but no salary was paid. It was also stated that one more candidate namely, Sujeet Kumar applied for the post of Jharukash was not found not fit in the physical test as his chest was short by 4 cm and height was short by 2 cm had filed a writ petition being WPS No. 5184 of 2021 which was allowed by this court vide order dated 18.08.2022 and the case of the petitioner is on same footing.

¶25

6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on the last date when the case was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the case of the petitioner is identically placed as that of one Sujeet Kumar who had moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5184 of 2021 and a direction was issued by this Court to consider his case. It was also submitted that the counsel was not aware as to whether said Sujeet Kumar had been ultimately appointment or not.

¶26

7. The said fact about Sujeet Kumar was brought to the notice of this Court only through rejoinder to the counter affidavit and accordingly vide order dated 26.02.2024 a supplementary counter affidavit was directed to be filed and as per the supplementary counter affidavit Sujeet Kumar has not been appointed and his candidature has been rejected vide order dated 13.10.2023 passed pursuant to W.P.(S) No. 5184 of 2021 by referring to the earlier measurement and that he was not allowed to join on account of shortfall in measurement and upon re-measurement also said Sujeet Kumar was found short of required measurement .

¶27

8. Perusal of the earlier counter affidavit indicates that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the joining of the petitioner was not

¶28

¶29

accepted by the appointing authority for the discrepancy in the measurement of chest when the petitioner was measured along with three others including Sujeet Kumar as per enquiry report dated 15.04.2016 (Annexure-C) and such process of measurement is admitted in the rejoinder but this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition although it is a material fact and in the writ petition the petitioner tried to take advantage of the order passed by this court in the case filed by others i.e WPS No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases who after joining went through training and also received regular salary. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner compared his case with that of Sujeet Kumar who was also not allowed to join along with the petitioner on account of discrepancy in measurements but the supplementary counter affidavit reveals that the candidature of Sujeet Kumar was ultimately declined on account of discrepancy in measurement though he was remeasured pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5184 of 2021 .

¶30

9. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that the petitioner was remeasured and discrepancy in the measurement has been recorded in the enquiry report dated 15.04.2016 (annexure-C) and that the petitioner was never allowed to join even at the initial stage and admittedly the petitioner never received any salary. The petitioner has not brought on record any appointment letter or joining letter and in fact the petitioner has not even mentioned initial date of joining in the writ petition. This court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the judgement passed in WPS No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases . Accordingly, this court is not inclined to grant any relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶31

10. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Binit

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Non-acceptance of the petitioner's joining by the respondent authorities (particularly respondent no. 6) when he appeared for rejoining on 13.04.2021 following the reinstatement ordered in W.P.(S) No. 3976 of 2016; the reliefs sought mandamus to accept the joining and consider the petitioner for appointment as 'Jharukash'.¶20
Respondents (State of Jharkhand police establishment; respondent no. 6, The Commandant, State Industrial Security Force)
Prior proceeding
Selection process: petitioner participated pursuant to advertisement no. 01 of 2015 for posts of cook, water carrier, barber, washerman and Jharukash under Jharkhand Armed Police, got selected in the final selection list dated 31.03.2016 as Jharukash and joined duty.¶20
Prior proceeding
Termination of petitioner's service vide notification no. 3646 dated 23.06.2016 on the ground of irregularities committed by a few persons.¶20
Prior proceeding
Mass irregularities reported; three-man enquiry committee constituted for verification/measurement of height and chest; petitioner found short of minimum requirement; committee report dated 15.04.2016 contained in Annexure-C to counter affidavit; report led to cancellation of the entire selection process.¶21
Prior proceeding
Termination/cancellation challenged in W.P.(S) No. 3976 of 2016 and other analogous cases; vide order dated 08.09.2019 the termination order was set aside, all writ petitioners reinstated on original post with consequential benefits, and the State was free to examine each case separately on its own merits.¶20
Prior proceeding
After notices for rejoining were issued, petitioner appeared before respondent no. 6 on 13.04.2021 but his joining was not accepted, leading to the present writ petition.¶20
Prior proceeding
Counter affidavit (paragraph 14): petitioner's joining was never accepted by the appointing authority for discrepancies in chest measurement prior to the High Court order; it was asserted that petitioner's case is not covered by W.P.(S) No. 3976 of 2016.¶23
Prior proceeding
Rejoinder (paragraph 9): petitioner stood that he discharged duty till 23.06.2016 without salary, and cited parallel case of candidate Sujeet Kumar in WPS No. 5184 of 2021, allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2022, claiming to be on the same footing.¶24
Prior proceeding
Supplementary counter affidavit (directed vide order dated 26.02.2024): Sujeet Kumar was not appointed; his candidature was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2023 passed pursuant to W.P.(S) No. 5184 of 2021, referring to the earlier measurement and to his failing re-measurement.¶26

Jitram Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitram Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Deptt of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baklu Lohra And Anr. Vs Yugal Kishore Baraik And Anr.

Arti Devi Vs Prabha Dey

Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Biswanath Munda and Ors.

Imam Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Kaushal Kishor Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukar Bhuia Vs the Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour