Rajan Kumar Singh & Ors v. RIMS & Ors.) and this Court after hearing the parties vide its order
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 1032 of 2021 ---------- 1. Pintu Kumar 2. Lalu Xess 3. Mojahid Islam 4. Askaran @ Ashkaran Kannojiya 5. Aysha Rani 6. Ashish Xess ………… Petitioners Versus 1. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, through its Director. 2. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. 3. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ………… Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 1553 of 2021 ---------- 1. Shivam Kumar Singh 2. Deepak Ram 3. Md. Imran 4. Mohammad Irfan 5. Md. Sarfaraz Alam 6. Sidhi Kumar 7. Anam Ahmad Khan 8. Birendra Das 9. Anjali Kumari 10. Yunush Marandi 11. Madan Kumar Gupta 12. Amar Kumar 13. Prakash Kumar Gupta 14. Abu Rehan Mansuri @ Aburehan Mansuri 15. Jag Mohan Lohra ………… Petitioners Versus 1. Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, through its Director. 2. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi. 3. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ………… Respondents 2 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioners For the Resp.
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I Ms. Khushboo Kumari, AC to GP-IV Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate M/s. Shivam Singh, Nilesh Modi, Prabhat Kumar, Advocates ---------- 13/ 27.09.2023 The issues involved in both the writ petitions are same, similar and identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together and are
Decision
being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to appoint them on the post of Laboratory Attendant/ Ward Attendant advertised vide Advertisement No. 955 (c) dated 08.03.2019 on which posts the petitioners stood selected with the publication of final list of selected candidates as contained in memo No. 4047/RIMS, Ranchi dated 20.10.2020. 3. Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 3267 of 2021 (Rajan Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. RIMS & Ors.) and this Court after hearing the parties vide its order dated 09.06.2022, allowed the said writ petitions with the following observations: “13. In the instant case, in absence of any enquiry and any report, mechanically it was concluded that Advt. No. 955 (c) was also full of irregularities and as such, it was cancelled. There is no iota of evidence brought on record to show that any irregularities was committed in the recruitment process pursuant to Advt. No. 955 (c). The results of the said Advertisement have already been published. It is always open for the respondents to consider the cases of successful candidates for issuance of appointment letters after following the procedure of law, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Needless to say, if the roster and reservation policy has not been followed, the respondents may undertake appropriate steps and issue appointment letter to the candidates from the select list after following the reservation and roster policy. 3 14. The entire advertisement in block cannot be cancelled, which has been held in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajesh P.U. & Anr., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285, “……………. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the other the beneficiaries of one or irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. …………………..” in itself legal propositions It was further held that the competent authority taking such an extreme and misdirected unreasonable decision by cancellation of the selection of unattained candidates, which was held not be justified. 15. Aforesaid irregularities were never taken into consideration by the authorities of the RIMS and on their own, in mechanical manner, they have cancelled the appointment of the Advt. No. 955 (c), which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 16. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observations, rules, judicial guidelines, pronouncements, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order as contained in memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021 is fit to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointments on Grade-IV posts, in view of the terms and conditions of appointment as mentioned in Advt. No. 955 (c) and if there is no other legal impediments, issue offer of appointment in favour of the petitioners. 17. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 18. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.” and 4. Thereafter, the respondent-RIMS has challenged said order before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 565 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide its judgment delivered on 11.08.2023 disposed of the said LPA preferred by the respondent-RIMS, holding therein that: 4 “60. Therefore, this Court is of the view that reason assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order cannot be said to be unjustified but taking into consideration the discussion made hereinabove and considering the fact that even there is some irregularity since the same can be cured or segregated hence cancellation of advertisement/entire selection process will be said to be at the cost of genuine candidate which cannot be said to be proper and justified otherwise for the reason that for no fault of successful candidates they are subjected to suffering, hence fresh select list is required to be prepared.” 5. In para-62 of the aforesaid LPA, the Division Bench has given certain guidelines to the respondent-RIMS which reads as under: “62. Therefore, the appellant-RIMS is hereby directed to: (I).Scrutinize all candidates afresh, as per advertisement. the applications of the scrutinize experience (II).Further certificate/other testimonials attached with the applications properly and weed out the forged/improper one. the (III).The experience certificate, if found to be forged, the candidature of such candidate must be rejected outrightly by taking consequential follow-up legal action against such candidate, if required. applicants (IV).The competent authority will take sincere endeavour for consideration of candidature of under are candidates who EWS/reserved category by well scrutinizing their eligibility criteria based upon the proper certificate issued in terms of the policy decision of the State Government and if they are coming under the parameter of such reservation policy, the benefit of reservation under EWS/reserved category must be extended to them. (V).Since the recruitment process has stretched fairly for four years for no fault on the part of the applicants, which put the institution like RIMS in adverse situation due to urgent requirement of class IV employees, therefore, it is directed to 5 complete the whole exercise of recruitment by publication of „Fresh select list‟ within a stipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. there (VI).Further, is allegation of certain irregularities in the process of selection, as such this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the Director, RIMS to take appropriate legal action by identifying the officers/staffs who were/are involved in the faulty process of selection so as to deal with properly in accordance with law.” 6. Learned counsel further submits that since similar issue has already been decided by this Court, present petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefits, what have been extended to the petitioners of W.P.(S). No. 3267 of 2021 (Rajan Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. RIMS & Ors.). 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has no objection to the same and submits that since the issues involved in these cases have already been decided by this Court. As such, upon direction of Court, the respondents shall examine the cases of the petitioners and if their cases are found to be on similar footings, the same benefits shall be extended to the petitioners what have been extended to the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 3267 of 2021 (Rajan Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. RIMS & Ors.). 8. In view of the fair submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.06.2022, passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 3267 of 2021 (Rajan Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. RIMS & Ors.) as well as LPA No. 565 of 2022, particularly para-62 of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and if the cases of the present petitioners are found to be same and similar to the cases of the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 3267 of 2021, the present petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. 9. Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petitions vis. a vis. factual aspects/issues involved in W.P.(S). No. 3267 of 2021 (Rajan Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. RIMS & Ors.), and if the facts/issues 6 involved in the present writ petitions are found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits be extended to the present petitioners also in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Kunal