Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster v. Manager, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2758 of 2023 ---------- Ranjeet Kumar Ray ………. Petitioner 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Versus Manager, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary. 5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner ----------- : For the Respondents :
Legal Reasoning
considered in view of judgment passed by this Court in the aforesaid case. However, the respondents are sitting tight over the matter and is not considering the case of petitioner for his appointment to the post of Constable pursuant to Advt. No. 04/2015. Hence, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that petitioner is entitled for appointment as 17 posts of Constables are still vacant. It has been argued that candidature of petitioner has been turned down only on the ground that he has passed Matriculation (Praveshika) from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. Placing reliance of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of W.P.(S). No. 3115 of 2015 (Vijoy Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and analogous cases, reported in 2022 (4) JBCJ 1, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the said case the Hon’ble Court has observed that the candidates who have procured degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar prior to 26.02.2015, their certificates are valid for the purpose of appointment and promotion. 2 Learned counsel submits that in the instant case, the petitioner has passed Matriculation (Praveshika) from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar in the year 2012 itself and has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate and his case has been rejected only on the ground that he has obtained certificate from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable pursuant to Advt. No. 04/2015. 5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Munja Praveen & Ors. Vs. State of Telangana, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 797. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State and respondent-JSSC jointly argues that petitioner is not entitled for appointment as his case was turned down on the ground that he has obtained certificate of Matriculation (Praveshika) from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. Learned counsel submit that even considering the judgment of this Court, the order cannot be given retrospective effect and the same has to be considered prospectively. Further, it has been argued that though 17 vacancies are there but as per Rules and settled law, the same has to be carried forward in future advertisement and the petitioner cannot be considered against the said vacancies. It has been further argued that the claim of petitioner is stale claim and he cannot be considered for any appointment. 7. Having heard the rival submissions of parties across the bar and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, petitioner has duly qualified in all the events and has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate, however, his candidature has been turned down only on the ground that he has passed matriculation certificate from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar. However, in view of ratio laid down by the Division 3 Bench of this Hon’ble Court in its judgment passed in W.P.(S). No. 3115 of 2015 (Vijoy Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and analogous cases, reported in 2022 (4) JBCJ 1, the Hon’ble Court has held that the certificates issued from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar till 26.02.2015 are valid for the purpose of appointment and promotion. In the case in hand, the petitioner has passed Matriculation (Praveshika) from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar in the year 2012 and as such, his case needs consideration. Relevant paras of the said judgments reads as under: “19. This Court, applying the ratio about retrospective applicability of executive instruction as has been settled in the judgment quoted hereinabove, is of the considered view that the decision of not providing validity to the degree issued by the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar w.e.f. 26.06.2014 as per decision contained in communication dated 26.02.2015 cannot be allowed to make it effective w.e.f. 26.06.2014 i.e., with retrospective effect rather it will be held to be prospective i.e., after 26.02.2015 as such the certificate issued by Hindi Vidyapith up-to 26.02.2015 is held to be valid. 20. This Court, in view of discussions made hereinabove, and case laws laid down in the case of Pradip J. Mehta (supra) is of the view that judgment passed in the case of Ramashankar Patel (supra) since is on the similar fact of the case, and further since the same has been affirmed up-to Hon’ble Apex Court, is of the view that the same will have persuasive value, since the factual aspect of the given cases are similar, same and except the date of order issued by the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand, which are issued on different dates, as referred above. 21. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the order/judgment as has been passed by the Full Bench of Patna High Court, is required to be followed on the ground of similarity of facts and more particularly the entire facts rest upon Govt. Order which was issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar of the time when State was unified i.e. vide order dated 11.01.1991. Further, the State of Jharkhand also adopted the said decision dated 11.01.1991 by issuing order on 03.11.2003. 22. In view thereof, this Court held that the degree of ‘Praveshika’ ‘Sahitya Bhushan’ and ‘Sahitya Alankar has got equivalence to to Matriculation, Intermediate and Graduation, as decided vide order dated 11.01.1991 by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, which was 4 adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide order dated 03.11.2003, and as such, the validity of order dated 11.01.1991 will be effective up-to 26.02.2015. 23. The degrees issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, are held to be vlaid up-to 26.02.2015. It is clarified that no benefit is to be given on the basis of degrees issued by the institution in question, Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, after 26.02.2015. 24. In consequence thereof, the petitioners are directed to approach before the respondents-authorities within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order for consequential benefit of promotion etc. Upon receipt/production of such order, the respondents- authorities shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law and on examining the facts of individual writ petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Needless to say that if one or the other writ petitioners are found eligible, the benefits shall be granted within further period of three months from the date of such decision. However, in case of any adverse decision, the same shall be communicated to the individual petitioner within the aforesaid period.” 8. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that though 17 seats are still lying vacant but the same has to be carried forward in the future vacancies, is not acceptable to this Court in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Munja Praveen (supra). The relevant para of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Munja Praveen (supra) reads as under: “9. According to us, the High Court has totally misconstrued the above GOMs. The portion of the GOMs quoted above clearly lays down that there shall be no waiting list and the selection shall be made equal to the number of posts notified. The purpose was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving the posts must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on the basis of a waiting list. It was clarified that after selection of the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy should be notified again. This portion of the GOMs admits of only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and the person appointed 5 does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled up on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downwards. This is also clear from Clause 9 of the GOMs, which also clarifies that fallout vacancies due to relinquishment or non- joining of the selected candidates may be notified in the next recruitment. This obviously means that the clause will apply after issue of letter of appointment. There can be no relinquishment and non-joining unless an appointment letter is issued.” 9. In view of the settled propositions of law and in view of the observations made above, this Court is of the view that petitioner cannot be faulted as it was not the petitioner who had failed in the examination and thereafter, claiming appointment. It is clear from the records that petitioner has obtained more marks than the last selected candidates but only because of the respondents, the case of petitioner has not been considered. 10. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Munja Praveen (supra) as well as the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 3115 of 2015 (Vijoy Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and analogous cases, reported in 2022 (4) JBCJ 1, I hereby direct the respondent to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable against the Advt. No. 04/2015 and if there is no other legal impediment, issue offer of appointment within a period of six weeks from
Arguments
Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Advocates 11/ 18.06.2024 Heard the parties. ---------- 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider his claim for appointment to the post of Constable in pursuance of the Advt. No. 04/ 2015, as the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration having successfully completed all the tests. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner having the requisite qualification applied for consideration of his case for appointment to the post of Constables against the advertisement floated by the respondent- JSSC vide Advt. No. 04/2015. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the recruitment process and successfully competed in the same and hence, he was called for documents verification as well as physical and medically test on 26.11.2016. Though the petitioner has been declared medical fit in re- medical test but he shocked to know that his name did not find place in the list of successful candidates. When the petitioner approached the 1 respondents for knowing the reasons for non-consideration of his case, it was informed by the respondent-authorities that as petitioner has passed the Matriculation (Praveshika) from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, therefore, his case for appointment to the post of Constable was not considered. It is the specific case of petitioner that recognizing the decree of Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar was challenged before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 3115 of 2015 (Vijoy Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and analogous cases, reported in 2022 (4) JBCJ 1 and this Court vide order dated 10.05.2022 held that degree issued by the Hindi Vidyapeeth Deoghar issued upto 26.02.2015 are valid for promotion and recruitment. It is further case of petitioner that since petitioner had passed Matriculation (Praveshika) from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar in the year 2012, his case ought to have been
Decision
the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/- 6