Jharkhand High Court
Raju Kumar & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 13 October, 2017
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2924 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 31 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 1206 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 1435 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 2214 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 3351 OF 2010
with
W.P.(S) No. 4805 OF 2010
Rajendra Prasad Thakur ... Petitioner [in W.P.(S) No. 2924 of 2010]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 2924 of 2010]
WITH
1. Raju Kumar
2. Md. Mahboob Alam
3. Pradeep Kumar
4. Md. Mumtaz
5. Binod Kumar Shrivastava
6. Prakash Ranjan
7. Khagesh Chandra Mahto
8. Khalid Belal ... Petitioners [in W.P.(S) No. 31 of 2010]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
5. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
6. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 31 of 2010]
WITH
Kalabati Sahoo ... Petitioner [in W.P.(S) No. 1206 of 2010]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 1206 of 2010]
RC
2
WITH
1. Yogendra Nath Swansi
2. Mokhtar Ahmad
3. Md. Naushad Alam
4. Md. Jalaluddin ... Petitioners [in W.P.(S) No. 1435 of 2010]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega
5. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 1435 of 2010]
WITH
Shashi Kumar ... Petitioner [in W.P.(S) No. 2214 of 2010]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 2214 of 2010]
WITH
1. Budheshwar Oraon
2. Telesphor Minz
3. Brijmohan Ram
4. Mahadeo Prasad Baitha
5. Niketius Bara
6. Keshwar Tirkey
7. Uday Hembrom
8. Sudesh Kumar Tirkey
9. Naresh Kumar
10. Anita Kullu
11. Telesphor Dungdung
12. Punai Oraon
13. Ashok Munda ... Petitioners [in W.P.(S) No. 3351 of 2010]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
5. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
6. Deputy Commissioner, Simdega
7. Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 3351 of 2010]
WITH
RC
3
Anju Kumari @ Anju Nath ... Petitioner [in W.P.(S) No. 4805 of 2010]
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
4. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
... Respondents [in W.P.(S) No. 1206 of 2010]
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate.
Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate.
Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate.
Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Binod Singh, SC (L & C)
Ms. Richa Sanchita, SC-V.
Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, JC to SC-V.
Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, JC to SC (L & C)
Mr. Sunil Singh, JC to Manoj Kumar [S.C. (Mines)]
Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, JC to GP-I
C.A.V. on 12/09/2017 Pronounced on 13 /10/2017
Dr. S.N.Pathak, J. As common question is involved in all these writ petitions, they have been
taken up together and are decided by this common order.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties in all these writ petitions.
3. Petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2924 of 2010 has approached this Court with a
prayer for quashing the letter no. 426, dated 18.06.2009, issued by the Secretary to
the Commissioner, Office of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur
Division, Ranchi whereby application of the petitioner for his absorption on Class-
III post from Class-IV post, has been arbitrarily rejected.
Further, petitioners in all the writ petitions have prayed for a direction
to the respondents to consider their case and appoint/ absorb them on Class-III posts
forthwith as the petitioners are senior in panel to those who have been given
appointments on Class-III posts and also in view of the fact that petitioners possess
the requisite qualifications for being appointed/ absorbed on Class-III posts and
vacancies still exist for their appointments/ absorption.
4. The facts in brief as has been delineated in the writ petitions is that in the
year 1991 petitioners were appointed in the Census Directorate as Compiler,
Checker and Supervisor i.e. Class-III posts on a consolidated salary basis. The
petitioners were Graduates at the relevant time of their appointments. A panel was
also prepared in the year 1991 in which name of the petitioners stood at different
serial numbers in the said panel list. All the petitioners and few others were
RC
4
retrenched in the year 1991 itself. Upon such retrenchment and considering
grievances of all such retrenched employees, a direction was issued by the Revenue
and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for their
absorption by way of adjustment of the employees of the 1991 Census and this
direction was conveyed to the concerned Deputy Commissioners of all the districts
vide letter dated 06.11.2003. Consequent upon such directions, the exercise to assess
the vacancies both in Class-III and Class-IV posts was completed and the vacancies
were assessed as per roster. However, when absorption of the retrenched employees
was taken up, pick and choose method was adopted by giving preference to some
candidates who were even juniors to the petitioners and had been allotted Class-III
posts on which they had been appointed whereas petitioners were offered Class-IV
posts. Grievance of the petitioners is that though they possessed requisite
qualifications for their appointment on Class-III posts and though their names
appeared in the panel above the name of the persons who had been allotted Class-III
posts, the petitioners had been denied the offer for Class-III posts.
5. It appears that similarly situated persons had moved this Court in W.P.(S)
No. 1735 of 2007, W.P.(S) No. 4631 of 2007 and W.P.(S) No. 1089 of 2007. In view
of the fact that still the vacancies were existing there, the Court directed the
respondents to consider case of those petitioners for their appointments/ absorption
on Class-III posts as persons even below in the panel list had been appointed. The
petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2924 of 2010 had preferred W.P.(S) No. 1089 of 2007
before this Court, which was however withdrawn in view of the orders passed in
W.P.(S) No. 1735 of 2007. Thereafter, he preferred representation before the
Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division with a request to consider his case in
light of the orders passed by this Court. The said representation filed by him had
been arbitrarily rejected vide letter no. 426, dated 18.06.2009, passed by the
Secretary to the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and his claim
for absorption from Class-IV to Class-III posts has been illegally rejected by the said
letter.
Similarly, the grievance of the petitioners in other writ petitions are that
though juniors to them have been absorbed in Class-III posts but they have been
denied similar benefits.
6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel, by referring to Annexures-12,
12/A and 13 in W.P.(S) No. 2924 of 2010, submits that still there are vacancies in
Class-III posts against which the petitioners could be adjusted as petitioners fulfill
requisite criteria and they have been denied absorption whereas juniors to them have
been absorbed against the Class-III posts. Learned Sr. Counsel, in order to buttress
RC
5
his arguments, drew attention of this Court to the order dated 10.08.2009, passed in
W.P.(S) No. 1735 of 2007 [Vijay Shankar Prasad and others Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and others] and the order dated 11.11.2009, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4631
of 2007 [Gurucharan Hajam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and
submitted that in view of order passed by this Court, the Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, vide letter
dated 27.01.2010, has issued direction to proceed for absorbing the petitioners of the
aforesaid cases on Class-III posts on the available vacancies in accordance with law
after due verification of essential conditions and eligibility.
Learned Sr. Counsel further drew attention of this Court towards Annexure-
17 in W.P.(S) No. 2924 of 2010 i.e. the Letter dated 23.03.2010 and submits that 35
new Circles have been created in Ranchi and 630 new posts have been sanctioned
through Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government
of Jharkhand and in view of that, the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed against
Class-III posts in view of the fact that still there are large number of vacancies for
their adjustments.
Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that the respondents have illegally and
arbitrarily rejected case of the petitioners though vacancies are still there and already
steps have been taken by the Department to consider cases of retrenched employees
on different posts. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that discriminatory view has
been adopted by the respondents authorities as the persons below in the panel list,
have already been appointed whereas the petitioners, though fulfill all requisite
qualification, have not been appointed against Class-III posts and as such, in view of
various orders passed by this Court in cases of similarly situated persons and in view
of the fact that vacancies are still existing, a direction may be given to the
respondents to consider cases of the petitioners for their appointment/ absorption
against Class-III posts.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the
contention raised by learned Sr. Counsel and further submitted that petitioners and
others had been retrenched in the year 1991 itself. Much water has already flown and
no case is made out for absorption/ appointment against Class-III posts. Learned
Counsel further argued that the employees can only be given promotion on Class-III
posts from Class-IV posts through proper procedure and decision taken in Divisional
Meeting and as per direction of Government and according to the orders passed by
competent Court, petitioners have already been adjusted against the Class-IV posts
and they cannot be again re-absorbed in Class-III posts. Learned counsel further
draws attention towards paragraphs-9, 11 and 12 of the supplementary counter
RC
6
affidavit filed on 18.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 2924 of 2010 which reads as under:
"9. That it is stated and submitted that the respondent no. 4 - the
Deputy Commissioner, Simdega has already sent existing vacancy
report of Class-III post in Simdega District vide Letter No. 395(II)
Est. Dated 12.07.2017 to the Joint Secretary, Personnel,
Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Government of
Jharkhand Ranchi.
......
11. That it is stated and submitted that the employees only be given
promotion on Class-III posts from Class-IV post through proper
procedure or decision taken in Divisional Meeting and as per
direction of Government of Jharkhand or according to order
passed by any competent court. The petitioner has been adjusted to
the post of Peon (Class-IV pot) and joined on the place of posting
willingly.
12. That it is stated and submitted that the petitioner claimed his
grievances on the basis of the panel list, which was prepared and
issued by the respondent and in that panel list the name of the
petitioner was figured and issued on 16.09.2006 and on
06.02.2008, accordingly many persons below in panel list have been adjusted in Class-III post."
Learned counsel further submitted that claim of the petitioners is contrary to the decision made in high level meeting of the Deputy Commissioners chaired by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, Jharkhand and contrary to the conditions laid down in their appointments and as such, there is no question of any illegality or discrimination and as such, prayer for appointment/ absorption in Class-III posts is not sustainable and fit to be rejected.
8. I have heard both sides. It appears that similarly situated persons had moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1735 of 2007 and vide order dated 10.08.2009, it was held at para-9 as under:
"9. In the light of the above facts, the concerned authorities of the Respondents, particularly the Respondent no. 2, namely the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners particularly in the light of the fact that the petitioners do admittedly possess the requisite qualifications for their appointment to Class-III posts and also in the light of the fact that, as indicated by the petitioners that a number of vacancies in Class-III posts do exist both in the district of Simdega and in the district of Lohardaga, and a decision on this issue should be taken by the Respondent no. 2 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and such decision shall be effectively communicated to the petitioners."
The respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit dated 18.08.2017 have admitted in paragraph-12 that in the panel list name of the petitioner was figured and was issued on 16.09.2006 and on 06.02.2008, accordingly RC 7 many persons below in panel list have been adjusted in class-III post. In paragraph-9 of the said affidavit, it has also been admitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega has already sent existing vacancy report of Class-III posts in Simdega District. As vacancies still exist and persons below in panel list have already been appointed/ absorbed against Class-III posts, the respondents cannot adopt pick and choose methods. Equal treatment has to be given to the similarly situated persons.
9. In view of the admitted position that still vacancies are there and persons below in the panel list have been appointed/ absorbed in Class-III posts and also in view of the fact that already this Court has directed to consider case of the petitioners in view of the vacancy position, resultantly the impugned letter no. 426, dated 18.06.2009, issued by the Secretary to the Commissioner, Office of the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi is hereby quashed and further respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioners along with others taking into consideration the vacancy position and also in view of the fact that persons below the petitioners in panel list, have been considered for appointment.
Let entire exercise be completed in accordance with law within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if case of the petitioners are found to be fit for absorption/ appointment on Class-III posts, offer of appointment letter be issued accordingly without any further delay.
All these writ petitions are disposed of with aforesaid observation and directions.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: October 13, 2017 RC RC