Dismissed

Mahesh Kumar Mehtar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2024WPC/4567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of appointments of other candidates for Group-D posts, claiming seniority based on external employment and experience certificates despite no advertisement stipulation. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that experience certificates carried no weightage absent specific advertisement requirements.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ application stands dismissed.

Mahesh Kumar Mehtar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 4567 of 2024

¶3

¶4

Mahesh Kumar Mehtar, Aged about 38 years, Son of Sri Budhu Mehtar, Resident of Gandhinagar (Gorhighat), Ward No. 8, P.O.Godda, P.S.-Godda (Town), District-Godda

¶5

...... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Principal District Judge, Godda, P.O. & P.S.-Godda, District-Godda.

¶9

The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi

¶10

Ravi Ranjan Tudu, Son of Sohray Tudu, R/O Village

¶11

Meharama, P.O. &P.S. Meharama, District-Godda.

¶12

Ishwar Murmu, Son of Dhanu Murmu, R/O Village Basako, P.O. & P.S.-Borio, Dist.-Sahebganj

¶13

......Respondents.

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶16

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State : Ms. Laxmi Murmu, G.P.-I

¶18

¶19

02/19.09.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the letter dated 25.01.2024, as contained in Memo No. 146-151 issued by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Godda (Annexure-9); whereby the concerned respondent appointed the private respondent nos. 4 & 5 to the post of Peon and Night Guard (Group-D) respectively and has ignored this petitioner, who is working from external source in the Civil Court, Godda since 09.05.2012.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued for appointment of Group-D employees, and the petitioner also applied for the same; however he could not be selected; rather the private respondent nos. 4 & 5 have been selected. He further draws attention of this court towards the character/experience certificate granted by the then Principal District & Sessions Judge on 30.03.2015 and 30.01.2016 and

¶22

¶23

submits that in the said examination, the said certificates were not considered and the petitioner has not been appointed, whereas the private respondents have been appointed; as such, the concerned District Court may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner since he is working from 09.05.2012 from external source in the Civil Court, Godda.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that for the appointment of Group-D employees in the Civil Court, Godda, an advertisement was published and there was no stipulation with regard to experience/character certificate and the petitioner duly appeared in that examination and when he has not been selected he has filed this writ application.

¶25

5. Having regard to the facts of the case, it appears that an advertisement was published for the post of Peon (Group-D) being Adv. No. 01/2023 and the petitioner duly applied in the said advertisement; however he could not succeed and when the other persons were appointed by publication the results; the petitioner knocked the door of this Court on the basis of experience certificate.

¶26

After going through the advertisement, it clearly transpires that there was no stipulation in the advertisement that any experience certificate is required in the process of appointment and/or such certificates will be having weightage in the selection process. Further, from Annexure-8, it appears that the petitioner was selected for commercial services from external source in the Civil Court, Godda from 25.09.2018.

¶27

As aforesaid, since there was no stipulation in the advertisement with regard to weightage of any character certificate or any person who was working on casual basis, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.

¶28

( Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶29

¶30

Mahesh Kumar Mehtar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Mehtar v. the State of Jharkhand

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

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

Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand