Kumkum Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 9 September, 2015

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Kumkum Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 9 September, 2015

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(S) No. 2012 of 2015

    Kumkum Kumari                           .......                   Petitioner
                           Vrs.
    The State of Jharkhand & others                         .....   Respondents

                            with
                  W.P.(S) No. 2576 of 2015

    Jyoti Gulab Dungdung & others                   .......                 Petitioner

                           Vrs.
    The State of Jharkhand & others                         .....   Respondents

                        .......
    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
    For the Petitioners : Mr. Munga Lal Kr. Chitra (W.P.S No.2012/15)
                          M/s Anil Kumar Sinha (W.P.S. No. 2576/ 15)

    For the State              : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, J.C to A.G. &
                                 Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, G.P.VI
    For the JAC                : M/s Sohail Anwar, Afaque Ahmad

08/09.09.2015

Counter affidavits have been filed in both the matter by the respondent- State. On the one hand, statements have been made at para 11 of the counter affidavit that District Level information has not been received regarding joining of recommended candidates and availability of subject wise vacant seats. This is a time taking process and may take some time to make available the information regarding the existing subject wise vacancy. At the same time another statement has been made in para 12 that in case vacancies exist in different subject, fresh advertisement will be published for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Upgraded High School and no further recommendation will be asked from Jharkhand Academic Council.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that stand of the respondent- State is ambivalent. If vacancies exist due to non joining of some of the recommended candidates for one or the other reason, there is no reason why such vacancies would be treated as future vacancies and be made subject of a future advertisement since several individual person like petitioners -2- who have qualified as per the prescribed criteria by securing more marks than the minimum marks and who are waiting for recommendation on the existence of vacancies would be denied appointment despite undertaking rigours of the recruitment exercise, while some of them may also be rendered ineligible in any future recruitment exercise. Therefore, the respondents are not reasonable and objective in taking their stand in line with the settled principles of law.

Learned counsel for the State has sought to explain the stand of the respondents shown in the respective counter affidavit. However he has not been able to satisfy the rationale behind it i.e, existing vacancies would be notified as future vacancies, even if the candidate recommended may not have turned up for being appointed.

Before taking a final call in the matter, learned counsel for the respondent- State is given one more indulgence to deliberate the issue with the respondent authorities and take a considered stand in accordance with law. It would also be proper that a responsible Officer of the rank of Director in the Department be present on the next date to assist the Court.

Accordingly, list both the cases on 30.9.2015.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court