Vikas Kumar Mahto, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Mukhlal Mahto, Resident of Village v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2767 of 2023 Vikas Kumar Mahto, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Mukhlal Mahto, Resident of Village Ichatu, P.O. & P.S. Ichatu, Dist. Ramgarh Versus … … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Jail More, P.O.-GPO, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi 4. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 5. The District Education Officer, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Gumla … … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-State For the Resp.-JPSC 05/21st February 2024 --- ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Pinky Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. Pravin Kr. Pandey, Advocate 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - i.e. the date when other candidates were “I. A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant/count the seniority of the petitioner w.e.f. 25/07/2012 issued appointment letters pursuant to the Advertisement No. 74/2011 in which the petitioner was also selected but due to latches on the part of respondent authorities and litigations the petitioner was given appointment on 20/05/2016, i.e. almost after 4 years, due to which at present the petitioner is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of eight years of experience for being appointed on the post of Principal as per the Advertisement No- 05/2023 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. II. A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to shift the date of appointment of the petitioner from 20/05/2016 to 25/07/2012 and issue experience certificate to that effect so that petitioner can apply pursuant to Advertisement No- 05/2023. III. A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to give relaxation in eligibility criteria of experience, to the petitioner as due to no fault on the part of petitioner the appointment letter of the petitioner has been issued on 20/5/2016 2 instead of 25/7/2012 i.e. the date when other candidates were issued appointment letters pursuant to Advertisement No. 74/2011 so that the petitioner could apply in the upcoming examination pursuant to Advertisement No- 5/2023.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner after some argument does not want to press the relief in connection with prayer at paragraph 1(II) and 1(III). The learned counsel submits that he wants to press only the relief with regard to prayer at Paragraph 1(I). 4. Considering the submission made, the relief with regard to prayer at paragraph Nos. 1(II) and 1(III) is dismissed as not pressed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the selection process but his candidature was rejected and ultimately the petitioner after long litigation was granted appointment on 20.05.2016 i.e. after about four years. He submits that the date of appointment should be notionally taken with effect from 25.07.2012 when the other selected candidates were issued the letter of appointment. 6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the matter relates to direct appointment and the position in the select list will govern the seniority position of the petitioner. He submits that there was no latches on the part of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in
Decision
paragraph 1(I) of the writ petition. He submits that no adverse order has been passed in this connection and the petitioner has already represented before the respondent No. 4. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted that since the petitioner was granted appointment after about four years, the appointment of the petitioner has to be treated from the date of his joining as per his appointment letter, but so far as the grant of any notional benefit is concerned, the same is required to be considered in the light of the applicable rules. She has also submitted that even the effective date of appointment has to be considered in the light of the applicable rules and since no adverse order has been passed, the matter may be directed to be considered by the respondent No. 4. 8. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is governed by the provisions of Jharkhand Service Code. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, it appears 3 that the petitioner had participated in the selection process but ultimately the petitioner was appointed on 20.05.2016 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. There is a gap of about four years and other persons who were selected at the relevant point of time were given appointment as back as on 25.07.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner should be granted notational benefit with effect from 25.07.2012. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the relief with regard to notional benefit and effective date of appointment is to be essentially governed by the provisions of Jharkhand Service Code and the respondents are required to consider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the Jharkhand Service Code and the applicable rules and circulars. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 4 by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of the writ records and a copy of this order within a period of 15 days from today. 12. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 4 is directed to pass a reasoned order considering the applicable provisions and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. The reasoned order be also communicated to the petitioner through speed-post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. 13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of the aforesaid in observations and directions. 14. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)