Jharkhand High Court
Animesh Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 November, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.197 of 2022
------
Animesh Kumar Mishra, Aged about 40 years, son of Sri
Sachchidanand Mishra, Resident of Village Lohra, P.O. Gari Khas,
P.S. Pandwa, District-Palamau
.... .... Appellant/Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand
having its office at Project Building, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa,
P.S. Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi (Pin-834004).
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar,
District-Palamau (Pin-822101).
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar,
District-Palamau (Pin-822101).
5. The District Education Officer, New Collectorate Building, Block-
C, Medini Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar, District-Palamau (Pin-
822101). .... .... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No.185 of 2022
------
1. Firoj Durrioz Khan, aged about 45 years, son of Allauddin Khan,
resident of Qr. No.B-3, Coal Board Colony, Baniahir, Parasia, P.O.
& P.S. Parasia, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. Abhishek Choubey, aged about 30 years, son of Nand Kishor
Chaubey, resident of village Barkagaon, P.O. Rajwadih, P.S.
Medininagar, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
3. Ashok Kumar Dubey, aged about 36 years, son of Jagnnath
Dubey, resident of New Area, Hamidganj, Ward No.1, P.O. & P.S.
Daltonganj, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
4. Md. Irfan, aged about 34 years, son of Nayeem Ahmad, resident
of village, P.O. & P.S. Lesliganj, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
2
5. Lalan Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Deorup Pal, resident of
village Salempur, P.O. Kabra Khurd, P.S. Haidarnagar, District
Palamu, Jharkhand.
6. Manoj Kumar Yadav, aged about 36 years, son of Ramchandra
Yadav, resident of village Pachghara Khurd, P.O. & P.S.
Bishrampur, District Palamau, Jharkhand.
.... .... Appellants/Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, Palamau
Division, At & P.O. & P.S.-Medininagar, District-Palamau,
Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, At & P.O. & P.S.-
Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamau, At & P.O.
& P.S.-Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Palamau, At & P.O. & P.S.-
Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No.186 of 2022
------
1. Praphul Kumar Singh aged about 34 years son of Late Ajay
Singh, resident of village + P.O.-Naudiha, P.S. Patan, District
Palamu, Jharkhand.
2. Anuj Sharma, aged about 33 years, son of Shrawan Sharma,
resident of village-Sakaldipa, P.O. & P.S. Patan, District Palamu,
Jharkhand.
3. Ujay Kumar Gupta, aged about 37 years, son of Tulsi Prasad
Gupta, resident of Patel Nagar, Sudna, Ward No.-1, P.O. & P.S.
Daltonganj, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
4. Rahul Kumar Dubey, aged about 40 years, son of Nand Kishor
Dubey, resident of village Chaneya, P.O. Basna, P.S. Bishrampur,
District Palamu, Jharkhand.
5. Md. Irfan Ahmad, aged about 36 years, son of Md. Iiilyas, resident
3
of village+P.O.-Tetrai, P.S. Panki, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
.... .... Appellants/Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, Palamau
Division, At & P.O. & P.S.-Medininagar, District-Palamau,
Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, At & P.O. & P.S.-
Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamau, At & P.O.
& P.S.-Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Palamau, At & P.O. & P.S.-
Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
.... .... Respondent/Respondents
With
L.P.A. No.201 of 2022
------
1. Kartik Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Ambika Ram, resident
of Village-Gamhariya, P.O.-Japla, P.S.-Hussainabad, District-
Palamau, Jharkhand, presently posted as a Peon in the Block
Office, Pandwa and on deputation working in the District Revenue
Office, Palamau.
2. Satish Kumar Sharma, aged about 32 years, son of Ram Rekha
Mistri, resident of Village-Karkatta, P.O.-Joga, P.S.-Untari Road,
District-Palamau, Jharkhand, presently posted as Peon in the
Public Sub-Health Centre, Taria (Manatu).
.... .... Writ Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
& Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building Secretariat,
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi-834004.
3. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, P.O. & P.S.-Medininagar,
District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.-Medininagar,
4
District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
5. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Palamau, P.O. & P.S.-
Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand.
6. The Block Development Officer, Pandwa, P.O. & P.S.-Pandwa,
District-Palamau (Jharkhand).
7. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Palamau, P.O. &
P.S.-Medininagar, District-Palamau, Jharkhand
.... .... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No.305 of 2022
------
Amrit Yadav, Aged about 32 years, Son of Late Jitu Yadav,
Resident of Village Chiyaki, P.O. Chiyaki, P.S. Medni Nagar,
District-Palamu, Jharkhand
.... .... Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand
having its office at Project Building, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa,
P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Pin-834004).
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Palamu, P.O. & P.S.-Medini Nagar,
District-Palamu (Pin-822101).
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, P.O. & P.S.-Medini Nagar,
District-Palamu (Pin-822101).
5. The District Education Officer, New Collectorate Building, Block-
C, Medini Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Medini Nagar, District-Palamu (Pin-
822101). .... .... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
: Ms. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
5
: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
(In LPA No.185/2022)
: Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, A.C. to G.P.-V
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III
(In LP.A. No.305/2022)
------
ORAL JUDGMENT
05/Dated: 24.11.2022 I.A. No.10097 of 2022 (L.P.A. No.185 of 2022), I.A. No.10098 of 2022 (L.P.A. No.186 of 2022) & I.A. No.8789 of 2022 (L.P.A. No.305 of 2022) These interlocutory applications have been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 27 days (In L.P.A. No.185 of 2022), 27 days (In L.P.A. No.186 of 2022) and 112 days (In L.P.A. No.305 of 2022) respectively in preferring these Letters Patent Appeals.
2. Heard.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.
4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No.10097 of 2022, I.A. No.10098 of 2022 and I.A. No.8789 of 2022 are allowed and delay of 27 days in preferring L.P.A. No.185 of 2022, 27 days in preferring L.P.A. No.186 of 2022 and 112 days in preferring L.P.A. No.305 of 2022 is condoned. 6 L.P.A. No.197 of 2022, L.P.A. No.185 of 2022, L.P.A. No.186 of 2022, L.P.A. No.201 of 2022 & L.P.A. No. 305 of 2022
6. The instant intra-court appeals preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, wherein, the order passed in batch of writ petitions by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.03.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No.187 of 2021 and analogous cases, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of termination while dismissing the writ petitions.
7. The brief facts of the cases, as per the pleading made in the writ petitions, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has published an advertisement in daily newspaper on 29.07.2010 for preparation of panel of eligible candidates for appointment on Class-IV posts in the district of Palamau. Several candidates including the petitioners have applied. They have participated in the written test held on 05.11.2017. They have been declared successful since their names have been published in the panel prepared of 361 candidates asking them to appear in the counseling. The authorities have constituted a Selection Committee for preparation of final list. 102 candidates have turned down in the counseling out of 361 candidates, out of them only 40 persons were ultimately found to be successful including the petitioners. Thereafter, a panel of 40 candidates was approved by the District Establishment Committee, Palamau and a fresh list of 7 successful candidates was published on 08.03.2018. Their appointment letters were issued in pursuant to the aforesaid panel in favour of the petitioners vide different office orders. The petitioners had joined at their respective offices as per appointment letters issued to them.
It is the case of the writ petitioners that the candidates who had not appeared in the counseling or whose cases were not considered, approached this Court by filing writ petitions which were disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2018 directing the respondents to prepare merit list as per the marks obtained in the written examination conducted by them on 05.11.2017 and thereafter make appointments of the candidates as per rules.
The State has preferred letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.26 of 2019 against the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases but stood dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2019.
It is the further case of the writ petitioners that in the light of the order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and ultimately, decision was taken by the District Establishment Committee, Palamau on 07.11.2020 to terminate the services of the writ petitioners with effect from 04.07.2020.
The writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the order of 8 termination have filed writ petitions taking the ground inter-alia therein that even though, there was no fault on the part of the writ petitioners but even then, they have been terminated from service.
The ground has been taken that the persons, who voluntarily choose not to appear in the counseling, have no right to agitate the matter but without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the administrative authorities have prepared fresh panel and the candidates have been appointed who, at the initial stage, had not been appointed.
The State-respondent has taken the plea that the entire exercise has been taken by the State authority in the light of the order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 along with other analogous cases, the order passed therein has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.26 of 2019 and thereafter, fresh panel has been prepared.
The authority while preparing the fresh merit list has found that the writ petitioners have gone down in the merit list and as such, decision was taken to terminate their services by making space for other candidates who are above in the merit list on the basis of their performance in written examination.
The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter has dismissed the writ petitions, against which, the present intra-court appeals have been preferred.
8. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing of the 9 appellants-writ petitioners has argued on behalf of all the petitioners on being instructed by other counsel on record, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law due to the reason that the writ petitioners have informed to be successful in the written examination and on the basis of the press release which has been issued warranting one or the other candidates to participate in the counseling, basis upon which, a merit list was prepared in which the writ petitioners were found to be successful candidates and thereafter, appointment letters have been issued. Therefore, there is no laches on the part of the writ petitioners, which prompted the State authorities to terminate the services of the writ petitioners.
It has been submitted that the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases have got no locus to question the process of selection in which the writ petitioners have been found to be successful and on consideration of the same, appointment letters have also been issued and they have also joined their services but it is the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases, the unsuccessful candidates at the initial stage have chosen not to participate in the counseling and therefore, after subsequent stage, they cannot take the plea that their cases were fit to be considered over and above the case of the writ petitioners on the basis of actual marks obtained in the written examination.
According to the learned counsel for the appellants-writ 10 petitioners, the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and straightaway dismissed the writ petitions by giving a finding that calling the successful candidates in counseling was not at all warranted.
9. Per contra, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.-II appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since in the original advertisement, there was no stipulation made to the effect that the candidates are required to appear in the counseling and if in absence of such stipulation, the candidates have not participated in the counseling, they cannot be deprived from consideration of their cases while preparing the merit list which exactly has been done by the appointing authority.
It has been contended that the issue of participation of counseling is subsequent to issuance of advertisement which has been issued by way of press release.
The grievance of the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases is that since there was no stipulation made in the advertisement to participate in the counseling and if they have not participated in the counseling, their cases ought to have been considered by inducting them in the panel on the basis of marks secured by one or the other candidates in the written examination but having not done so, there is gross illegality in the process of selection.
10. The concerned petitioners of W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 along 11 with other analogous cases, at that juncture, being aggrieved with the decision of the State authority in preparing the panel only of such candidates who have participated in the counseling, has been questioned before this Court.
11. This Court has considered the same while considering the writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases and has directed the State authority to prepare a fresh panel and while preparing so, the other candidates who have secured higher marks than the writ petitioners, have been found to be successful over and above the candidature of the writ petitioners and in consequence thereof, the services of the writ petitioners have been decided to be terminated in order to make space for the purpose of appointing the other candidates who are above in the panel to that of the writ petitioners.
The learned Single Judge, therefore, considering the order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases which has been affirmed even by the Division Bench of this Court after dismissal of L.P.A. No.26 of 2019 vide order dated 07.11.2019 and if in that pretext, panel has been prepared and the candidates who have been found to have secured higher marks than the petitioners, if appointed in place of the writ petitioners, the same cannot be construed to suffer from an illegality, as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the 12 documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
13. The issue which requires to be considered that once this Court has passed an order in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the background of the fact that the candidates who have not participated in the counseling even though, there was no stipulation made to that effect but for participating of one or the other candidates in the counseling was not there in the advertisement, can they be excluded from insertion in their names in the panel. The candidates who have not participated in the counseling due to non-availability of such condition in the advertisement since have been deprived from their place in the panel and as such, they have questioned the entire selection process by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 along with other analogous cases.
The coordinate learned Single Judge has appreciated the fact in entirety and after considering the terms of advertisement, wherein, there is no stipulation made to the effect that successful candidates on their assessment in the written examination will have to participate in the counseling and the candidates who have not participated in the counseling since have been excluded from insertion of their names in the panel, has been considered to be improper decision of the authority and in consequence thereof, the State authority has been directed to prepare a fresh merit list.
The aforesaid order passed by the coordinate learned Single 13 Judge has attained its finality by the Division Bench of this Court in an order passed in L.P.A. No.26 of 2019 on 07.11.2019, whereby and whereunder, the order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases has been affirmed.
The respondents-authorities have accepted the order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and other analogous cases and prepared a fresh panel list. The writ petitioners have gone down in the merit list and the candidates who have secured higher marks in comparison to that of the writ petitioners have come above.
The respondents-authorities in that pretext has taken decision to terminate the service of the writ petitioners in order to make room for the candidates who have been found to be more meritorious in comparison to that of the writ petitioners and accordingly, the writ petitioners have been terminated from service.
14. The fact which is not being denied by the writ petitioners herein is that they have secured lesser marks in comparison to that of other candidates whose names have subsequently been inserted in the merit list on the basis of their assessment in the written examination as stipulated to be conducted in the advertisement.
Therefore, there is no dispute that the candidates who have been shown to be higher in merit list in the panel are admittedly more meritorious in comparison to that of the writ petitioners.
15. The State-authorities, if, in such circumstances, has taken 14 decision to terminate the writ petitioners from service in order to make out a room for the candidates who have been found to be more meritorious, in the light of the order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court, the said action of the State- authority, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error.
16. The writ petitioners, admittedly, have not questioned the order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 along with other analogous cases which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.11.2019 passed in L.P.A. No.26 of 2019 by filing any appropriate application, either by preferring a review or questioning that order in an appropriate proceeding.
17. The order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 along with other analogous cases since has attained its finality, basis upon which, fresh panel has been prepared, in which admittedly, the writ petitioners have been found to be below in the merit to that of the other candidates, if in such circumstances, the services of the writ petitioners have been terminated in order to make out a room for meritorious candidates, over and above, the writ petitioners, the same cannot be said to suffer from an illegality.
18. This Court, after having discussed the fact in entirety has considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has considered the 15 order passed by the coordinate learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 along with other analogous cases which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.26 of 2019 and has refused to interfere with the decision of the authority by which the services of the writ petitioners have been terminated, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error.
19. In the result, the instant appeals fail and are, dismissed.
20. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Rohit/-
A.F.R.