The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 188 of 2024 Jitan Ram aged about 38 years, son of Late Awadhesh Ram, resident Kamlesh Rai aged about 35 years, son of Janki Rai, resident of Ugendra Kumar Singh aged about 39 years, son of Krishna Murari Vijay Ram aged about 38 years, son of Rajnath Ram, resident of Jayant Paswan aged about 36 years, son of Uday Paswan, resident of Ajay Rajwar aged about 38 years, son of Jatha Rajwar, resident of ---------- 1. Raushan Paswan aged about 31 years, son of Satyendra Paswan, resident of village Sultani, P.O. Babhandi, P.S. Hahiharganj, District Palamau. 2. Punit Vishwakarma aged about 37 years, son of Vishwanath Vishwakarma, resident of village Sultani, P.O. Babhandi, P.S. Hahiharganj, District Palamau. 3. Singh, resident of village Madanpur, P.O. and P.S. Pandu, District Palamau. 4. Subodh Kumar Singh aged about 37 years, son of Late Chandeshwari Prasad Singh, resident of village Balra, P.O. Babhandi, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 5. of village Balra, P.O. Babhandi, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 6. Manoj Rai aged about 42 years, son of Matuki Rai, resident of village Tendui, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Pipra, District Palamau. 7. village Hasanpur, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 8. village Madhubana, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 9. Holeya, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 10. village Tendui, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Pipra, District Palamau. 11. Arun Rajwar aged about 38 years, son of Krishnadeo Rajwar, resident of village Madhubana, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 12. Randhir Ram aged about 34 years, son of Raghunath Ram, resident of village Tendui, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 13. Baikunth Kumar aged about 37 years, son of Late Marachu Yadav, resident of village Kulhiya, P.O. Halka, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 14. Pramod Yadav aged about 40 years, son of Dashrath Yadav, resident of village Bardag, P.O. Pipra, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 15. Amit Kumar Singh aged about 35 years, son of Umesh Singh, resident of village Tendui, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Pipra, District Palamau. 16. Sudama Yadav aged about 36 years, son of Indradeo Yadav, resident of village Tendudih, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 17. Rohit Lal Yadav aged about 35 years, son of Hiralal Yadav, resident of village Aawar, P.O. Khadagpur, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 18. Dilip Oraon aged about 42 years, son of Birbal Oraon, resident of village Kodwariya, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 19. Gautam Kumar aged about 34 years, son of Ghura Ram, resident of village Balra, P.O. Babhandi, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 20. Prem Ranjan Tiwari aged about 34 years, son of Surat Nath Tiwari, resident of village Taliyee, P.O. and P.S. Chainpur, District Palamau. 21. Sikendra Oraon aged about 39 years, son of Rajendra Oraon, resident 1 of village Kodwariya, PO. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. 22. Raju Ranjan Kumar Yadav aged about 35 years, son of Ram Nandan Yadav, resident of village Langurahi, P.O. and P.S. Turi, District Palamau. 23. Sujit Oraon aged about 39 years, son of Vijay Oraon, resident of village Kodwariya, P.O. Sakaldipa, P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. ……….. Petitioners
Facts
Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Director General cum Commandant General, Home Guard, Jharkhand, having office at Fire Brigade Building, Rajendra Chowk, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. Daltonganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand. 4. District Palamau, Jharkhand. 5. Palamau, Jharkhand. District Commandant, Home Guard, Palamau, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, Medininagar, P.O. and P.S. Superintendent of Police, Palamau, P.O. and P.S. Daltonganj, District CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- ………. Respondents. For the Petitioners For the Respondents 14/ 04.12.2024 Heard the parties.
Legal Reasoning
before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1946 of 2015 which led to dismissal of the case of petitioners of the same case and as such, present petitioners cannot be panelized for a wrong done by the respondents. 3 5. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly argues that grievance of the petitioners have already been redressed in W.P.(S). No. 1946 of 2015 and this Court has considered every aspect of the matter and taking into consideration that Advt. No. 1/2010 already stood cancelled and as such, no relief can be granted, the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel
Arguments
----------- : M/s. Saurav Arun, Ayushi, Bhanu Kumar No. 1, Sharon Kerketta, Advocates : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III ---------- 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for direction to the respondents to publish the results of Home-guards pertaining to Advt. No. 1/2010. 3. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Palamau in pursuant to the letter no. 102 dated 17.04.2010 issued by the Home Department, had floated Advt. No. 1/2010 for appointment to the post of Home Guards. The petitioners finding themselves eligible in all respects applied for the same. It is the case of petitioners that one Vikas Kumar Dubey had sought information through Right to Information Act in relation to selection/ nomination for Home Guards in Lohardaga where in 2010 advertisement was floated for selection of Home Guards. Thereafter, the office of the Deputy Commandant, Home Guard, Lohardaga has 2 provided the merit list of the selected candidates. Though petitioners have also given several representations to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau for publication of results but the respondents have not taken any steps for the same. It is the specific case of petitioners that without completing the selection process of Advt. No. 1/2010, the respondents have arbitrarily issued a new advertisement for selection/ nomination of Home Guard in the district of Palamau while process of Advt. No. 1/2010 has not been completed in which petitioners have applied and selected in physical test. In 2010 advertisement, altogether 13048 vacancies were there whereas in 2023 there are 1696 vacancies. It is the further case of petitioners that in view of letters dated 21.01.2023, 13.02.2023 and 17.03.2015, the respondents themselves have admitted the fact that till the rule is framed, the process of appointment shall be stayed. Now, the rule has already come into existence but in spite of that no appointment is being made in respect to 2010 advertisement, rather, the respondents have came out with fresh advertisement of 2023. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that till date result of the Advt. No. 1/2010 has not been published as far as Palamau district is concerned and without publication of the same, a fresh advertisement has been floated without giving any opportunity to petitioners who are now overage. Learned counsel submits that without adhering to the new rules, the respondents have appointed several Home Guards in other districts which is discriminatory and against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16. Learned counsel further submits that even taking into consideration the new rule, no amendment has been carried out save and except that age of retirement has been enhanced from 54 to 60 years. Learned counsel further argues that a wrong statement has been made
Decision
submits that when the writ petition was dismissed in the year 2016, it was not open for the petitioners to approach this Court for the same relief which is barred by principle of constructive res judicata and as such petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 6. Heard the parties at length. 7. From perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1946 of 2015 disposed of on 22.02.2016, it appears that grievances of the petitioners of the said case were duly considered and the Court was of the view that since Advt. No. 1/2010 is not in existence nothing survives in the present writ petition and accordingly the said writ petition was dismissed. It is not open for the petitioners to approach this Court for the same self-relief. However, it appears from the order and affidavit filed on the direction of this Court that Advt. No. 1/2010 remained pending and it was cancelled in the year 2024 only. From the order of this Court it appears that the same stood cancelled in the year 2012 itself. A paper cutting has been brought on record by way of affidavit, from perusal of which it appears that Advt. No. 1/2010 remained pending for years together and thereafter a new advertisement was floated in the year 2023. From the affidavit and notification by the Deputy Commissioner, it appears that process of appointment pursuant to 2023 Advertisement has already been completed in the year 2023 itself. 8. Resultantly, no interference is warranted and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4