Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

"14. Since the selection process has not been completed and keeping in view the mandate of the statutory rules, we find that the appellants have no right to dispute the action of the municipal bodies to fill up the posts either by way of promotion or by deputation as such posts are being filled up in terms of mandate of the Rules. It is always open to the municipal bodies to fill up the vacant posts by way of direct recruitment after the posts by way of promotion and/or deputation quota are not filled up either on the basis of recruitment process already initiated or to be initiated afresh"

23. In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In one of the writ petition, it has been disclosed that last selection process to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor has taken place in the year 2012 vide Advertisement No.25 of 2012, where after the selection process got completed in the year 2013. It has been disclosed in paragraph 8 of W.P.(S) No. 68 of 2022 that only 60 A.P.Ps. are functioning and, therefore, the concerned Department has issued Advertisement No.03/2018 for filling up 143 vacancies for appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Advertisement No.03/2018 has been published on 23.02.2018. The Preliminary Examination was conducted on 28.07.2019, in which each paper was of 2 hours sitting. The Main Examination was conducted from 05.01.2020 to 09.01.2020 in the following schedule, which has been disclosed in paragraph 13 of W.P.(S) No.68 of 2022:

31. The Court is of concerned that several criminal cases are pending in the State of Jharkhand and in absence of the Assistant Public Prosecutors, criminal dispensation justice is badly affected.

32. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the State in the case of Mohd. Rashid (supra) is not in dispute. It is well settled that merely on appearing in examination and even appearing the name in merit list, a person is not having right, that is not in dispute. However in the case in hand, the selection process has been completed and only it is required to publish the result by the JPSC. In none of the petitions, it has been prayed that the petitioner be directed to be appointed pursuant to that advertisement. Thus, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the State is not helping the respondent-State.