Purushottam Kumar Singh ……… v. 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi through its Chairman. 2. The Secretary, Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.5858 of 2014 ---------- Purushottam Kumar Singh ………. Petitioner. Versus 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi through its Chairman. 2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary-I, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. 4. The Joint Secretary-II, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. 5. The Director (Personnel), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. ………. Respondents With W.P. (S) No.5878 of 2014 ---------- Bimal Kumar Jha ………. Petitioner. 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi through its Chairman-cum- Versus Managing Director. 2. General Manager (Personnel & General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Ranchi 3. Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. ………. Respondents With W.P. (S) No.5986 of 2014 ---------- 1. Nitin Agrawal 2. Bijoy Kumar ………. Petitioners. 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi through its Chairman-cum- Versus Managing Director. 2. General Manager (Human Resource and General Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Ranchi 3. Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd., Ranchi. ………. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK --------- For the Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
submits that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5868 of 2014, 5870 of 2014 and 5871 of 2014, wherein, this Court was pleased to dismiss the said writ applications holding therein that the appointments of the petitioners as Accounts Officer against the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment, are ab initio absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The petitioners have rightly been given the notice to show cause as to why their appointments as be not canceled and upon giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners, their appointments have been canceled. The Court further observed that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.11.2014. 6. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 12.07.2016, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5868 of 2014 (Avinash Singh Bharti Vs. JUVNL & Ors.) and other analogous cases reads as under: 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Nigam that the advertisement was never issued for the selection of internal candidates / employees of the Nigam, rather the post were advertised for direct recruitment from open market. In the said advertisement, 3 only age relaxation up to 50 years was given to the qualified employees of the then JSEB, for giving them equal opportunity to compete with the candidates from open market and the selection had to be made according to the merits only. The selection process was completed and the name of the selected candidates was also forwarded by the XLRI to the then JSEB, but the names of the petitioners did not find place in the list of selected candidates. This apart, the 1991 Rules, which have been brought on record as Annexure–A to the counter affidavit clearly shows that the post of Accounts Officers are to be filled up by direct recruitment as also through promotion. For direct recruitment, charted the prescribed qualification from any accountants or ICWA or MBA Government recognised Institutions / Universities, whereas for promotion, the Rules provide that feeder post for promotion of the Accounts Officers is from Accountant / Junior Accounts Officer. The documents brought on record clearly show that the petitioners were neither working as Accountant nor Junior Accounts Officer, rather the petitioners were working on the post of Accounts Assistants and Head Clerk. In other words, the petitioners were not even working on the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, and as such they could not be considered even for promotion as internal candidates, and for the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment, the petitioners could not compete and their names did not find in the list of selected candidates.” in Finance is 7. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the matter fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 446 of 2016, 459 of 2016 and 460 of 2016, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to affirm the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 5868 of 2014, 5870 of 2014 and 5871 of 2014. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the present writ petitions. Admittedly, similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5868 of 2014, 5870 of 2014 and 5871 of 2014, wherein the Hon’ble Court after hearing the parties, dismissed those writ application holding therein that the appointments of the petitioners as Accounts Officer against the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment, are ab initio absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The petitioners have rightly been given the 4 notice to show cause as to why their appointments as be not canceled and upon giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners, their appointments have been canceled. 9. Thereafter the matter fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 446 of 2016, 459 of 2016 and 460 of 2016, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to affirm the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 5868 of 2014, 5870 of 2014 and 5871 of 2014, holding therein as under: “12. It is clear from a perusal of extant rules that no separate list of panel of JSEB employees could have been submitted by the recruiting agency XLRI. Appellants have been appointed from the panel of JSEB employees and not from the merit list of external candidates of General, ST or OBC category. It is one thing to say that internal candidates are also permitted to compete with external candidates against 60% quota of direct recruits to the post of Accounts Officer by getting age relaxation up to 50 years, but it is totally different thing to say that in a recruitment process of external candidates, JSEB employees could compete as internal candidates against 5% quota as prescribed under Rule 6 (iii). The advertisement was for direct recruitment from external candidates and not a promotional exercise through limited departmental exam of internal candidates. If that be so, appellants did not have a right to hold the post of Accounts Officer on the basis of such recruitment exercise though as per their claim, they were having educational qualification of MBA with finance and had applied as such, as internal candidates. Even by the second test laid down in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra (Supra) and followed in the case of P.C. Wadhwa (supra) contention of the appellants that they have been visited with adverse civil consequences cannot be accepted since their reversion is not by way of punishment necessitating a disciplinary enquiry as conceived under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Appellants were never confirmed on the post of Accounts Officer. Within one year of their appointment on probation basis show cause notices were issued upon them as to why they be not reverted to their substantive post. The show-cause notice of reversion was issued on 13.08.2009. Merely continuing on the said post for 6 years till the order of reversion was passed, would not amount to conferring a substantive right in their favour to hold the post of Accounts Officer. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of “The Divisional Personnel, Officer, Southern Railway, Mysore Vs. S. Raghavendrachar” reported in AIR 1966 SC 5 1529 (paragraphs 21 and 22). The whole argument of the appellants based upon non-compliance of Article 311 of the Constitution of India falls to the ground. 13. In view of the elaborate reasons discussed hereinabove in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the order of learned Single Judge calling for interference in these appeals. The appeals being devoid of merit, are dismissed.” 10. Since similar issue has already been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and order of learned Writ Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, this Court cannot takes any other view other than what has been expressed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.(S) Nos. 5868 of 2014, 5870 of 2014 and 5871 of 2014. 11. Accordingly, all these writ petition stands dismissed in terms of order passed in W.P.(S) Nos. 5868 of 2014, 5870 of 2014 and 5871 of 2014. 12. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed. Kunal (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 6
Arguments
Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : --------- 1 12/ 10.05.2024 Since, the issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and identical and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for quashing the order dated 10.11.2014, passed by the Joint Secretary-II, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. whereby the appointment of petitioners to the post of Accounts Officer vide notification No. 4110 dated 16.08.2008 has been cancelled. 3. The facts of cases lie in a narrow compass. The erstwhile JSEB had issued an advertisement No. 1 / 2007 for direct recruitment on 17 posts of Accounts Officers. In the said advertisement, the minimum qualification of the candidates was mentioned as Charted Accountant or ICWA or MBA in Finance from any reputed Government recognised Institutions/ Universities. The maximum age limit for the candidates was 32 years, which was relaxed up to 50 years for the qualified employees of the JSEB. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners, who were working under the JSEB also gave their applications for the said post. The recruitment process was assigned to Xavier Labour Relation Institute (XLRI), Jamshedpur, which conducted the examination and prepared the selection list. The selection list has been brought on record as Annexure–2 to the writ applications, which is dated 16.12.2007. By the said letter, the list of selected candidates in various categories was forwarded to the then JSEB. Thereafter, somehow, appointments of the internal candidates were also made against the vacancies notified for the direct recruitment and the petitioners were also appointed on the post of Accounts Officers along with other candidates. Subsequently, it was found that the appointments of the petitioners, who were the internal candidates of the JSEB, were made against the posts of Account Officer to be filled up by direct recruitment, and the petitioners were not having the required qualification for the said post. Accordingly, the notice was given to the petitioners to show cause as to why their selection be not terminated and after considering the representations of the petitioners, by the impugned order dated 10.11.2014, the appointments of 2 the petitioners as Accounts Officers were canceled and the petitioners were reverted back to their original posts, on which they were working prior to their appointment as Accounts Officers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Joint Secretary-II, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. is absolutely illegal and bad in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the petitioners were appointed after completing the due process of selection and the petitioners being the internal candidates, were allowed to apply for the same, they applied for the same and they were finally selected for the post and only thereafter the petitioners were appointed on the said post. It is submitted that there was no illegality / irregularity in the appointment of the petitioners. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order dated 10.11.2014, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents