Jharkhand High Court
Md. Zaki Azam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1979 of 2023
Md. Zaki Azam, aged about 61 years, so of Md. Shahabuddin,
resident of Wasseypur, Qumar Makhdoomi Road, Matkuria, P.O.
Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More, District Dhnbad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, having its
office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagannathpur, District Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distributio
and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, having its office
at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur,
District Ranchi
3. The Under Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and
Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur,
District Ranchi ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
: Mr. Wazid Ali, Advocate
: Md. Azam, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms. Pinki Tiwari, AC to AG
---
08/20.02.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Members of District Consumer Commission, as his case was wrongly not considered and placed before the Selection Committee by the Scrutiny Committee, even though the petitioner was eligible on all counts.
(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s), order (s), direction (s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondent authorities to adjust the petitioner in the vacancies of the post of 'Member' going to be available, in the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi, Pakur, Chatra, Palamu and Garhwa.
And/Or For the issuance of any other appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s) for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been a practicing advocate at Civil Court Dhanbad and has excellent credentials whose details have been mentioned in paragraph 8 of the writ petition and also has adequate experience. He submits that according to the rules namely Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of 2 appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, the petitioner had applied for his appointment as a member of district consumer forum in terms of Advertisement No. 4 of 2021. The petitioner had applied for the districts of Dhanbad, Bokaro, and Ranchi in preference and other details were also provided in his application. Suddenly the petitioner came to know the selection process was complete and the recommendation was made by the selection committee and despite his excellent record the petitioner was not selected.
4. The petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court earlier being W.P.(S) No.248 of 2022 wherein the petitioner had challenged the selection process for appointment of members of the district consumer commission under Advertisement No. 04 of 2021. He had also challenged the procedure by which the application was first placed before the scrutiny committee before placing the same before the selection committee. The said writ petition was dismissed vide the order dated 22.02.2023. However, liberty was reserved with the petitioner to file a separate writ petition if the petitioner felt that by committing illegality or ignoring his qualification, his case was not considered. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The grievance of the petition as mentioned in the writ petition in paragraph 24 is that the petitioner was eligible but his name was not placed before the selection committee for consideration on merit. The learned counsel submits that since the candidature of the petitioner was never considered on merit therefore, the present writ petition is fit to be allowed and the respondents be directed to adjust the petitioner in the vacancies for the post of member going to be available in the district consumer forum in the district of Ranchi, Pakur, Chatra, Palamu and Garhwa.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer of the writ petitioner and has submitted that as per the counter affidavit, the matter was placed before the selection committee and the cut-off marks for the selected candidate was 49.80 and for the waitlist candidate was 40 and the petitioner got only 39.10 and ranked 47 and therefore, his name was out of the selected 3 candidate as well as waitlist candidate. It has been submitted that the name of the petitioner cannot be adjusted for the vacant post of members in the district commission. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot have any right to seek appointment against future vacancies and if the future vacancies are to be filled, the same will be filled up by issuing fresh advertisement.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the applicants under the advertisement issued under the aforesaid rules being Advertisement No.04 of 2021. The petitioner had applied for the district of Dhanbad, Bokaro and Ranchi in preference, and when the petitioner was not selected and as soon as he came to know that the selection process was complete, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 248 of 2022 challenging the selection process and also the procedure by which the applications were first placed before scrutiny committee before placing it before selection committee. This is reflected in paragraph no. 02 of the judgement passed in W.P.(S) No. 248 of 2022 which is quoted as under-
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection process for appointment of Members of District Consumer Commission, pursuant to Advertisement No.04 of 2021. He further challenges the procedure by which the applications were first placed before the Scrutiny Committee, before placing the same before the Selection Committee."
8. This Court after considering the case of the parties rejected the challenge of the petitioner about the constitution of the selection committee and the procedure adopted by the respondents in the matter of selection. Para 10 and 11 of the judgment passed by this court are quoted as under-
"10. The objective of the said committee is mentioned in Clause 2 of the said memo, which is only to scrutinize the applications as per the minimum qualification and criteria and thereafter to prepare a list of eligible candidates and place the same before the Selection Committee. This is exactly what the Sub Rules (7) and (8) of Rule 6 mandates.
11. Thus, I find no illegality in constitution of the "Screening Committee" and the procedure adopted by the respondents is not illegal and rather is in accordance with the statute."
9. However, some observation was made in connection with the case of the petitioner in paragraph 12 which is also quoted as under:
4"12. So far as the case of this petitioner is concerned, he has not been selected, rather his case has not been placed before the Selection Committee. In this writ petition, the only thrust is upon the process. Since the process is in accordance with the law and the rules framed, I find no ground to accept the contention of the petitioner so far as this writ petition is concerned. If the petitioner feels that committing illegality or ignoring his qualification, his case was not considered, it will be open to the petitioner to file a separate writ petition restricting his case on the merits of his claim."
10. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the relief as quoted above.
11. The petitioner has taken a plea in paragraph no.24 of the writ petition that his case was never placed before the selection committee for consideration on merits. This plea of the petitioner stands negated by the respondents through the counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that cut off marks for the last selected candidate was 49.80 and for the waitlist candidate, it was 40 and the petitioner has secured only 39.10 and ranked 47.
12. Thus, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner was placed before the selection committee and appropriate marks were allotted and ultimately the petitioner was not selected. The petitioner having not been selected on merit, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in para 1(i) cannot be granted.
13. So far as the prayer made in para 1(ii) is concerned, no such relief can be granted since the petitioner's name did not even figure in the waitlist and the petitioner is seeking his adjustment against future vacancies for the post of Member which is going to be available in the district consumer forum in the district of Ranchi, Pakur, Chatra, Palamua and Garwha. This Court is of the considered view that no such relief can be granted to the petitioner against future vacancies. The future vacancies are to be filled up in terms of the rules and no candidate can claim any adjustment against future vacancies.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav