Gopinath Dey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 2554 of 2024

Gopinath Dey, son of Badal Chandra Dey, Tetulia, Ankduara, VillageBaliapur, P.O. Nirsa, P.S. Nirsa, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhnad.

¶4

….. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi.

¶7

The Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, DistrictRanchi (Jharkhand).

¶8

Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary having its office at Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Ranchi, DistrictRanchi (Jharkhand). …. Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶10

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): M/s Varsha Ramsisaria, AC to GP-V For JSSC: Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate.

¶11

04/02.01.2025:

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner prays for direction upon the respondent to issue appointment letter in his favour as his name appears at Sl. No. 12 in the waiting list, published on 5.2.2019.

¶14

It is an admitted case in January, 2018, an Advertisement was published seeking application for the post of Jr. Engineer (Civil) for a period of three years on contract basis. The petitioner applied for the same and he was placed at Sl. No. 12 in the waiting list. It is the case of the petitioner that though some of the persons whose names appeared in the main selected list did not join, the respondents have not appointed the petitioner on contract basis, though his name appeared at Sl. No. 12. He further submits that now a fresh Advertisement has been published on 16^th May, 2023, but the petitioner has not been appointed.

¶15

The counsel for the respondents submits that the advertisement dated 16.5.2023 does not specify that the same is contractual this means the same is a regular appointment. The advertisement against which the petitioner applied was for the contractual post that too only for the period of three years.

¶16

From the submission of the parties, I find that the petitioner had applied against the Advertisement dated 3^rd January, 2018. As per the said Advertisement, the period of appointment for the post of Jr. Engineer (Civil) was contractual and only for three years or till regular appointment is made. Three years admittedly have lapsed and vide Advertisement dated 16.5.2023, the Department is seeking to fill up the said post on regular basis.

¶17

¶18

Admittedly, the petitioner did not apply for the regular post. Since the period of three years has already lapsed and a fresh advertisement has been issued to fill up the post on regular basis, the petitioner has got no vested right to get appointment against the Advertisement dated 3^rd January, 2018, which was only for a period of three years on contract basis.

¶19

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶20

Anu/-Cp2.

¶21

(ANANDA SEN, J. )

¶22

Gopinath Dey v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinath Dey v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Soy Murum Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gor Singh Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saraswati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nawal Kishor Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Commercial Taxes

Gaurav Kumar Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

Nitai Modi Vs M/S Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director