Jharkhand High Court
Kamal Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1276
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice, Sujit Narayan Prasad
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4861 of 2019
----
Kamal Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Kalipada Das, resident of
House No 55, VPO-Benagoria, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, District-Dhanbad,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal Department
of Transport having its office at FFP Building, HEC Campus, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi.
2. The Commissioner, Department of Transport Having its office at
FFP Building, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary, to Government Department of Transport
having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist
Ranchi
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary
having its office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, Dist
Ranchi.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission having its office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O. & P.S.
Namkom, Dist Ranchi.
6. Sri Amod Kumar Tripathi, son of Tarkeshwar Tripathi, resident of
Hari Nagar Colony, Tatisilwai, P.O. P.S. Tatisilwai, District Ranchi.
7. Sri Arun Kumar Das, son of not known to the petitioner, resident
of P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribag.
8. Rajnikant Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, resident of
P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi.
9. Sri Arun Kumar Jha, son of not known to the petitioner, resident
of Dumardagga, P.O. and P.S. Booty, District Ranchi.
10. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Dhruv Singh, resident of Village
Manupur, P.O. and P.S. Manupur, District Sarang.
11. Sri Bahadur Prasad Verma, son of Late Lekho Mahto, resident
of P.O. and P.S. Mirzadih, District Giridih.
12. Sri Narendra Prasad Yadav, son of Shatrughan Gope, resident of
P.O. Fatehpur, P.S. Saoor, District Bhagalpur, Bihar.
13. Sri Ram Krishna Tiwari, son of Late Parmanand Tiwari, resident
of Murodhpur, P.O. & P.S. Jhowan, Dist. - Chapra, Bihar.
14. Sri Ashish Kumar Mahto, son of Krishna Mahto, resident of
Laladih, P.O. and P.S. Balipur, District Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 4741 of 2019
----
Rajesh Lal, Aged about - 38 years, Son of - Ram Baran Ram,
Resident of Village - Pipra, P.O. P.S. Pipra Bazar, District Palamu,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary Department of
Transport having its office at FFP Building, HEC Campus, P.O. P.S.-
[2]
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. The Commissioner, Department of Transport having its office at
FFP Building, HEC Campus, P.O. P.S.-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary
having its office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O. P.S. Namkom, Dist
Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission having its office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O. P.S.
Namkom, Dist Ranchi.
5. Mr. Amod Kumar Tripathi, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Tatisilwai, P.O. Tatisilwai, P.S. Tatisilwai, Dist - Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
6. Mr. Arun Kumar Das, S/o - Not known to the petitioner, Resident
of - Ichak, P.O. Ichak, P.S. Ichak, Dist - Hazaribag (Jharkhand).
7. Mr. Rajnikant Singh, S/o - Not known to the petitioner, Resident
of - Chutia, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, Dist - Ranchi (Jharkhand).
8. Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, S/o - Not known to the petitioner, Resident
of - Dumardaga, P.O. - Dumardaga, P.S. Dumardaga, Dist - Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
9. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Manupur, P.O. Saran, P.S. Saran, Dist - Saran (Bihar).
10. Mr. Bahadur Prasad Verma, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Mirjadih, P.O. Bajato, P.S. Bajato, Dist- Giridih
(Jharkhand).
11. Mr. Narendra Prasad Yadav, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Fatehpur, Sabour, P.O. Sabour, P.S. Sabour, Dist -
Bhagalpur (Bihar).
12. Mr. Ram Krishan Tiwary, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Muraudpur, P.O. Jhowan, P.S. Jhowan, Dist - Chapra
(Bihar).
13. Mr. Ashish Kumar Mahto, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Laladih, P.O. Baliapur, P.S. Baliapur, Dist - Dhanbad
(Jharkhand). ... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 4889 of 2019
----
Rahul Kumar aged 30 years son of Shri Bishnu Charan Mahto,
resident of Savitri Chhaya, Belbagan, Samlong, P.O. + P.S. -
Namkum, District - Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary Department of
Transport having its office at FFP Building, HEC Campus, P.O. +
P.S.-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. The Commissioner, Department of Transport having its office at
FFP Building, HEC Campus, P.O. + P.S.-Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary
having its office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O. + P.S. Namkom,
District- Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection
[3]
Commission having its office at Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O.+ P.S.
Namkom, District - Ranchi.
5. Mr. Amod Kumar Tripathi, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Tatisilwai, P.O. Tatisilwai, P.S. Tatisilwai, Dist - Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
6. Mr. Arun Kumar Das, S/o - Not known to the petitioner, Resident
of - Ichak, P.O. Ichak, P.S. Ichak, Dist - Hazaribag (Jharkhand).
7. Mr. Rajnikant Singh, S/o - Not known to the petitioner, Resident
of - Chutia, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, Dist - Ranchi (Jharkhand).
8. Mr. Arun Kumar Jha, S/o - Not known to the petitioner, Resident
of - Dumardaga, P.O. - Dumardaga, P.S. Dumardaga, Dist - Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
9. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Manupur, P.O. Saran, P.S. Saran, Dist - Saran (Bihar).
10. Mr. Bahadur Prasad Verma, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Mirjadih, P.O. Bajato, P.S. Bajato, Dist- Giridih
(Jharkhand).
11. Mr. Narendra Prasad Yadav, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Fatehpur, Sabour, P.O. Sabour, P.S. Sabour, Dist -
Bhagalpur (Bihar).
12. Mr. Ram Krishan Tiwary, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Muraudpur, P.O. Jhowan, P.S. Jhowan, Dist - Chapra
(Bihar).
13. Mr. Ashish Kumar Mahto, S/o - Not known to the petitioner,
Resident of - Laladih, P.O. Baliapur, P.S. Baliapur, Dist - Dhanbad
(Jharkhand). ... ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate
For the Resp. State : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Sr. S.C.-I
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Sr. S.C.-II
Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, G.P.-II
For the Resp. JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate
Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
----
ORAL JUDGMENT
Order No. 09 : Dated 27th February, 2020 At the outset it is recorded herein that in pursuance to the order dated 16.01.2020, the records pertaining to the Diploma Level Joint Competitive Examination, 2016 (DSCCE- [4] 2016), have been produced by one Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, presently working as Under Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, let the same be taken on record.
2. Personal appearance of Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Under Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is dispensed with.
3. All these three writ petitions since having similar cause of action, therefore, have been directed to be heard together and accordingly are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
4. These writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order as contained in Memo No. 136 dated 14.12.2018 to the extent that the candidature of writ petitioners for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector was denied by the respondent authority on the ground that the writ petitioners had failed to acquire the training from the recognized establishment being registered under the Factories Act as also for seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in view of the fact that the petitioners have been declared successful in examination conducted pursuant to the advertisement No. 18/2016 by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission as also for quashing of the part of the notification No. 365 dated 10.06.2013 [as contained under Annexure-14] in [5] so far as it prescribes that the experience certificate so issued should be from an enterprise which is registered under the Factories Act since the said provision contained in the notification is dehors the Rule contained in Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act as also the rule prescribed for appointment vide notification being S.O. No. 443(E) dated 12.06.1989 issued by the Central Government.
5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading in the writ petitions read hereunder as :-
That the petitioners, claiming themselves to be eligible for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Mines Inspector) in pursuance of advertisement No. 18/2016 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, made their applications. It is the case of the petitioners that they were allowed to participate in the selection process in which they were found to be successful but at the time of scrutiny of their documents, their candidature was rejected on the ground that they were lacking eligibility pertaining to experience as provided under Condition No. 5.1 of the advertisement. The writ petitioners have approached to this Court making prayer for consideration of their candidature by cancelling the decision of the respondent authority with a further direction to quash the eligibility criteria pertaining to experience as under Condition No. 5.1 of the advertisement as also the Rule enacted by the respondent State of Jharkhand [6] vide Notification No. 365 dated 10.06.2013 as contained under Annexure-14 in W.P.(S) No.4861 of 2019 which according to the writ petitioners, is in the teeth of provision as contained under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act as also the Notification dated 12.06.1989.
6. It requires to be referred herein, before considering the legality and propriety of the decision in rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioners to first deal with the prayer made to the effect for quashing of the experience condition as provided under Clause 4(b) of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2010 (in short Rules of 2010).
7. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties at Bar that the vires of Clause 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7648 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2015 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Satyapal Reddy and Others Vs. Govt. of A.P. and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC
391. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the vires of Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 has already been held to be intra-vires and therefore, the prayer pertaining to the vires of Clause 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 is required to be dismissed [7] and accordingly the same is dismissed, in consequence thereof, the prayer pertaining to quashing of the Notification No. 365 dated 10.06.2013 is also dismissed.
8. So far as the rejection of candidature of the writ petitioners are concerned, reference of the advertisement is required to be made more particularly, the condition of experience as has been stipulated under Condition No. 5.1 of the advertisement which is based upon the provision of Clause 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 which provides that a candidate seeking consideration of his candidature for being appointed to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector, he is required to have three years Diploma either in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering as also three years of practical experience in a factory registered under the Factories Act.
It also requires to refer herein that in pursuance of the advertisement No. 18/2016 online applications were invited. The writ petitioners had submitted their applications claiming themselves to be having three years practical experience as per the condition stipulated under Clause 5.1 of the advertisement and as such their candidature were accepted and they were allowed to participate in the process of selection in which they were declared to be successful and they also came under the consideration zone for appointment but pursuant to the condition stipulated under the advertisement regarding scrutiny of the documents at the time of its verification i.e., [8] prior to the issuance of offer of appointment, it was found that the declaration furnished by the writ petitioners about having three years practical experience in the factories having been registered under the Factories Act, was incorrect and, therefore, their candidature was rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, in course of argument, submitted that when the writ petitioners were not having the requisite experience as per the condition stipulated under clause 5.1 of the advertisement, their candidature ought to have been rejected at the threshold but instead of doing so, the writ petitioners were allowed to participate in the process of selection and when they have been found to be successful, rejection of their candidature cannot be said to be a justified decision of the authority.
10. This Court, in order to appreciate the aforesaid argument, had directed the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission vide order dated 16th January, 2020 to bring on record the original records of selection process containing also the applications of the writ petitioners and in pursuance thereof the records have been produced.
11. We have perused the records wherefrom it appears that the writ petitioners have given a declaration about having three years experience after passing the Diploma examination. Since the candidate was required to submit online application, as such, there was no requirement to furnish the documents enabling [9] the examination body to scrutinize the documents for consideration of candidature at the initial stage. It is not in doubt that if any online application is being invited by any board or agency conducting the examination, the details is required to be furnished by one or the other candidates and if a candidate would be found to be successful, he will have to produce himself along with the documents for its verification and if it comes to the notice of the authority at the time of scrutiny of the documents that any wrong declaration has been furnished, it is always available to the examination body to reject the candidature of such candidate.
Admittedly, the writ petitioners, at the time of making online applications, have furnished the declaration about having three years practical experience and the examining body, treating it to be in pursuance of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, accepted the candidature of the writ petitioners and were allowed to participate in the process of selection and when at the time of scrutiny of the documents, in order to assess as to whether the details furnished at the time of online application is in pursuant to the condition stipulated in the advertisement, is found to be incorrect, the decision taken by the examining body by rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioners cannot be said to be unjustified as because when any condition has been stipulated in the advertisement based upon the statutory provision, it is incumbent upon one [10] or the other candidate to furnish correct declaration for consideration of their candidature and if any declaration has been found contrary to the condition as contained in the advertisement, such candidate cannot be allowed to contest if his candidature has been rejected at the time of scrutiny of the document.
It also requires to refer herein that the experience condition has been incorporated under Clause 5.1 of the advertisement based upon the provision of Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 and the same having been declared to be intra- vires by this Court in an order passed in W.P.(C) No. 7648 of 2013 and when the candidates are making their applications after looking to the stipulated conditions, it was incumbent upon such candidates who were seeking consideration of their candidature to come with clean hands i.e., without giving any wrong declaration.
As would appear from the online applications available on record, this Court finds substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission about wrong declaration having been furnished by the writ petitioners.
It is settled position of law that when any condition has been stipulated in the advertisement, it has unscrupulously to be followed without any deviation in any way. Otherwise, if any deviation would be allowed to one or the other candidate, it will [11] amount to relaxation which is not permissible either by the recruiting agency or by this Court.
It further requires to refer that any appointment, if made contrary to the statutory provision, the same will dehors the Rule and accordingly, the appointment will be nullity in the eye of law.
12. This Court, in view of the aforesaid facts, is of the view that the writ petitioners have failed to make out any case for passing any positive direction, therefore, these writ petitions lack merit and, accordingly, are dismissed.
13. Consequently, interlocutory application being I.A. No. 240 of 2020 filed in W.P.(S) No. 4741 of 2019, also stands dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/ A.F.R.