Kuldeep Ram @ Kuldip Ram, aged about 54 years, s/o Kallu Ram, r/o Village-Jabra v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2728 of 2023 Kuldeep Ram @ Kuldip Ram, aged about 54 years, s/o Kallu Ram, r/o Village-Jabra, PO-Daru, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh … …Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building Dhurwa, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, Circular Road, Ranchi, PO & PS-Lalpur, District-Ranchi 4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, Circular Road, Ranchi, PO & PS-Lalpur, District-Ranchi … …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the State For the JPSC
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajendra Ram Ravidas, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Raj, Advocate : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate -------- Order No. 9 /Dated: 6th August 2024 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner pursuant to Advertisement No. 05 of 2005, issued by the respondent no.3, for the post of First Deputy Collector Limited Competitive Examination, 2005; since the petitioner even after obtaining qualifying marks being a Scheduled Caste candidate is not appointed. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein it has been stated that on 26.04.2006, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short, JPSC) conducted the written test examination in different examination centres and the petitioner had also appeared in the written examination on 26.04.2006. After the examination, several complaints 1 were received about use of unfair means and irregularities. Thereafter, the matter was also investigated by CBI and the CBI made a recommendation for cancellation of the examination. On the basis of such recommendation, JPSC cancelled the examination and the same was also informed to the candidates by press communique on 13.06.2013. Subsequently, JPSC has also proceeded with the matter and decided to conduct re-examination of Limited Competitive Examination for appointment of Deputy Collector 2006 in terms of Advertisement No. 05 of 2005. 3. From record, it also appears that initially Admit Cards were issued to 8254 candidates for their appearance in the written examination and out of 8254 candidates, application forms of 1316 candidates could not be traced out and as such JPSC placed the names of those candidates on website and the aforesaid candidates were also directed to submit their application form. 4. It is a specific stand of JPSC in paragraph no. 20 of its counter affidavit that at one point of time there was only one category of Backward Class i.e. Other Backward Class and accordingly in the advertisement the vacancies of Other Backward Class were shown as seven and later on the Other Backward Class was bifurcated in two categories i.e. BC-I and BC-II categories. Therefore, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide its Letter No.4182 dated 08.05.2014 requested the JPSC to bifurcate seven posts of the Other Backward Class under two categories i.e. BC-I and BC-II to the extent of 4 and 3 posts respectively. Thereafter, the Commission in its meeting dated 06.09.2018 decided to bifurcate the post of Other Backward Class in two categories as per the recommendation and it was also decided by the Commission to obtain fresh caste certificate from the reserve category candidates. 5. In paragraph no. 24 of the counter affidavit of the respondent- JPSC it has been specifically stated that Performa-I i.e. performa of 2 certificate was prescribed by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand vide its Letter No.5682 dated 22.10.2008 for the SC/ST categories candidates for extending the benefits for reservation and vide Memo No. 10007 dated 25.09.2012 Performa-II i.e. caste certificate for BC-I and BC-II categories was also prescribed by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. The aforesaid decision was also published in daily newspaper on 12.11.2018; whereby the candidates were directed to file fresh caste certificate in prescribed format. 6. It is an admitted case that the petitioner did not file the fresh caste certificate as required by the JPSC in view of the guidelines of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand and in terms of Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by JPSC. 7. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he was having no knowledge of the fresh advertisement regarding submission of fresh caste certificate as per the format prescribed by the JPSC. 8. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC and Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG submits that the action of the respondents is not arbitrary but fully in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. 9. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that any instruction of the Government upon the JPSC and any instruction of JPSC is mandatory which has recently been held in the case of “State of Tamilnadu and Others v. G. Hemalatha and Another” reported in (2020) 19 SCC 430 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 as under: “8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to 3 be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission [M. Vennila v. T.N. Public Service Commission, 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 465 : (2006) 3 Mad LJ 376] . the learned 9. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by respondent in Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad [Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, (1999) 2 SCC 635] and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 545 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 951] in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case. Counsel Senior the for 10. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations. 11. In her persuasive appeal, Ms Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] , Venkataramiah, J., held that : (SCC p. 735, para 13) “13. … Exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.” 13. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us.” 10. Having regard to aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to this petitioner at this belated stage since the entire selection process is over. Moreover, as stated herein above, the action of the respondents is fully in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, 4 Government of Jharkhand and any instruction of the Government upon the JPSC and any instruction of JPSC is mandatory as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Amit (Deepak Roshan, J.) 5