Jharkhand High Court
Baleshwar Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. Passed In ... on 1 May, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 JHA 149
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 2692 of 2009
......
Baleshwar Saw ...... .....Petitioner
Vrs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. Assistant Director (Employment), Additional Regional Employment Exchange, Hazaribag
5. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag .... ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Adv. For the Resp. : Mr. Anoop Kr. Agrawal, AC to GA-V ....
06/01.05.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been field by the petitioner for direction upon the respondents to consider his claim for appointment on Class-IV post.
As per the pleadings, petitioner had participated in the selection process initiated under Adv. No. V02/2002 dated 24.04.2002 issued by the Assistant Director (Employment), Additional Regional Employment Exchange, Hazaribag. The claim has been made that petitioner has come under the zone of consideration and as such, he should have been considered for appointment.
Counter affidavit has been filed. Relevant para-4 and 5 of the counter affidavit are quoted hereinunder:
"4. That before giving para wise reply to this writ petition it is pertinent to mention here that a panel of 676 candidates was prepare on the basis of merit list by the District Level Panel Construction Committee, out of which names of 308 candidates were recommended as per their seniority in which the name of the petitioner does not figure as he was never recommended to any department for appointment.
5. That it is submitted herein that the recommendation to various departments for making appointment was done as per merit list i.e. seniority wise as well as category wise. That all together 308 candidates have been recommended of which 143 are general candidates, 55 are SC candidates, 32 are ST candidates and 78 are OBC candidates. The petitioner belongs to OBC category but his name was not in merit list recommended for appointment in various departments."
Though specific statement has been made that petitioner has not -2- come under the zone of consideration, but this fact has not been refuted by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rupak Kumar Mahajan Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. passed in LPA No. 213 of 2017 dated 24.01.2018 wherein the concerned issue has been discussed and decided that life of panel is valid only for one year. Para 5 (XV) (a), (b) and (c) is quoted herein under:
"5 (XV)..........................................................................
(a) The State of Jharkhand shall not operate the panel of candidates prepared in the year 2005 in pursuance of the public advertisement No.02 of 2002, except by the order of the Court.
(b) Already appointed candidates shall not be disturbed, in pursuance of the public advertisement No.02 of 2002, except by the order of the Court.
(c) The State of Jharkhand shall not give any public advertisement for any post without there being specifically mentioning the number of vacancies.
(d) The State of Jharkhand is also directed to point out that the panel of selected candidates will be operated up to what period."
Thus, in view of the above discussion and judicial pronouncement, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and as such, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Kamlesh/