Jharkhand High Court
Kamlakant Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 16 August, 2018
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1550 OF 2016
Kamlakant Pandey ... ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/ Principal
Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Department of Labour,
Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director, Employment and Training Directorate, Department
of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
4. The Assistant Director, Employment and Training Directorate,
Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the State: Mr. D.K. Dubey, Sr. SC-I
06/16.08.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Trade Instructor in the Industrial Training Institution (ITI). Further prayer has been for a declaration that non-appointment of petitioner on the ground of lapsing of panel of one year is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
3. Fact of the case lies in narrow compass. An Advertisement No. 18, dated 07.07.2009 was issued by the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board for appointment of 504 Trade Instructors in different Industrial Training Institutes (ITI) situated within the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner being ITI in the trade Electrician and belonging to General Category, applied for the Electrician Trade. Petitioner and others appeared in the examination and results were published in which petitioner's name figured at Sl. No. 28 under the heading "Posts - Electrician - Merit List". Thereafter, appointment letters were issued and the last appointment was made by office order issued vide Memo No. 559, dated 21.05.2014. Though the posts RC 2 are lying vacant and petitioner could have been called for appointment but appointment letter has not been issued in his favour though petitioner is within the zone of consideration for appointment as per vacancy and his merit position. Petitioner has also represented before various forums and authority but nothing has been done and as such, he has knocked door of this Court.
4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner's position stands at Sl. No. 28 in the panel but under the unreserved category, his name appears at Serial No. 19. Since total number of vacancies under general category is 21 and as such, if all the seats are filled up, petitioner would fall within the zone of consideration. Learned counsel further submits that the ground of rejection of case of the petitioner is that the panel for appointment lapsed after one year and as such no further appointment could be offered, which is not at all sustainable in view of the fact that up to May, 2015, the appointments have been made from the same panel. Learned counsel submits that still a number of posts are lying vacant and petitioner and others could have been accommodated against those vacant seats but only in order to harass the petitioner, the respondents are taking the plea that the panel has already lapsed. Learned counsel further submits that respondents themselves have made several appointments from the same advertisement after lapse of one year period. The full details given in paragraph-9 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that the issue is no more res-integra. The issue has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2016, passed in W.P.(S) No. 5449 of 2015 and other analogous cases. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5449 of 2015 and other analogous cases and W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016.
5. AC to learned Sr. SC-I does not object to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as the issue has already been set at rest by this Court. Learned counsel, however, RC 3 defended stand of the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was not called for counselling but the fact remains that he was within the zone of consideration.
6. In view of submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5449 of 2015 and other analogous case and W.P.(S) No. 702 of 2016 with detailed order, this writ petition is also being disposed of in terms of order passed therein.
7. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the case, this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 - Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi or the officer authorized by him to do the needful for appointment of the petitioner. It is made clear that the concerned respondents shall take the decision in the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and subject to fulfillment of other conditions, if any, they shall issue necessary orders for appointment of the petitioner in the respective category, to the post on which he was selected.
2. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC