The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No. 263 of 2021 1.Jitendra Kumar s/o Ramdeo Paswan, aged about 51 years, r/o Qr. No.512, Sector-3D, PO Sector-3, Bokaro Steel City, PS-Sector-III Chas, Bokaro, Bokaro, Jharkhand 2. Sanjeev Kumar s/o Ramswroop Sharma, aged about 45 years, r/o B.P.C.L Road (70 feet), Saristabad Patna, P.O & P.S- Pakri, Patna, Bihar 3. Santosh Kumar Singh s/o Wakil Singh, aged about 43 years, r/o Q No 166, Street 1, Sector 9/A, P.O & P.S Sector 9, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand 4. Mahesh Nayak s/o Badri Nayak aged about 48 years r/o village Dantoo, P.O Dantoo, P.S Kasmar, Bokaro, Jharkhand 5. Shiv Shankar Yadav s/o Rameshwar Yadav aged about 44 years, r/o village Gorhand, P.O & P.S Gorhand, Giridih, Jharkhand 6. Ram Pyar Choudhary s/o Sheo Balak Choudhary aged about 44 years, r/o Q No 345, P.O Sector 3, P.S City Thana, Chas Sector-3E, Bokaro Steel City, Chas Bokaro, Bokaro, Jharkhand 7. Hemendra Kumar Mahto s/o Khelu Ram Mahto aged about 49 years, r/o village Ramakunda, P.O & P.S Ramakunda Topchanchi, Dhanbad, Jharkhand 8.Vijay Kumar s/o Gurudas Prasad, aged about 46 years, Q No. 1416, Sector 1/B, P.O & P.S Sector 12, Bokaro Steel City, Marafari Colony, Chas Bokaro, Bokaro, Jharkhand 9. Ambika Prasad Bauri s/o Karam Chand Bauri, aged about 45 years, r/o Q No 2109, Sector 6/D, Bokaro Steel P.O & P.S Sector 6, Bokaro, Jharkhand 10. Manoj Kumar Das s/o Bhagtu Rohi Das aged about 44 years, r/o Siyaljori, P.O Jogidih, P.S Bhojudih Mahal, Bokaro, Jharkhand 11. Aditya Prasad s/o Madan Mohan Bauri, aged about 49 years, r/o village Kura, P.O & P.S- Kura Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand. 12. Manoj Kumar Rajak s/o Ganauri Rajak, aged about 46 years, r/o Nardiganj, P.O & P.S Nawada, Bihar 13. Vidya Sagar s/o Jhaman Ram, aged about 43 years, r/o Q No 2074, Sector 4G, P.O & P.S- Sector 4, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand 14. Sudarshan Ram s/o Mahavir Ram, aged about 52 years, r/o Q No 3045, Sector- 4E, P.O & P.S Sector 4, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand 15. Deonandan Choudhary s/o Nathuni Choudhary, aged about 42 years, r/o Q No 421, Sector 3/D, P.O & P.S Sector 3, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand 16. Punay Vikram Xalxo s/o Vincent Khalkho, aged about 50 years, r/o Khalkho Niwas, Mission Hospital Road, Village Khamhra, P.O & P.S -Gomia, Bartua, Bokaro, Bokaro, Jharkhand 17. Ravi Murmu s/o Baneshwar Murmu aged about 47 years, r/o Q No 1439, Sector 1B, P.O & P.S- Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand 18. Lakhishwar Marandi s/o Mehilal Marandi aged about 46 years, r/o village Khutri (Mangla Tand), P.O & P.S Thakur Tand, Bokaro, Jharkhand ...… Appellants 2 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary-cum-Comissioner, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, PO & PS-Bokaro, District-Bokaro 5. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasa Department, PO, PS & District-Patna, Bihar .....Respondent State/ Respondent State 6.Rajesh Kumar, aged about 46 years, s/o Sri Jagarnath Mahto, r/o Q. No.308/II, Sector-III C, Bokaro Steel City, PO & PS-Bokaro, Jharkhand 7. Dharmendra Kumar, aged about 46 years, s/o Shiv Prasad, r/o c/o Ramayan Singh, Prabhat Colony, Chas, PO & PS-Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand 8. Sunil Kumar aged about 47 years, s/o Fakira Mahto, r/o C/o Baidyanath Jaiswal, Punarwas Kashetra, near Airtel Tower, Jainamore, PO-Jainamore, PS & District-Bokaro, Jharkhand 9. Bachchu Prasad aged about 46 years, s/o Krishna Prasad, r/o D.S. Colony, Chas, Q.No.C/3, near Chas Municipality Office, PO & PS-Chas, Bokaro, Jharkhand 10. Kamal Nayan aged about 52 years, s/o Late Sukhdeo Prasad, r/o Block Quarter, Chandankiyari, PO & PS-Chandankiyari, Bokaro, Jharkhand ….Petitioners/Respondents -------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants For the State of Jharkhand For the State of Bihar For the Resp. Nos.6 to 10 : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar, SC (Mines)-II : Mr. Binit Chandra, JC to GA (Bihar) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the Intervenors Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate --------------- O R D E R 25th January 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Six persons out of whom the petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 were appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk and the petitioner nos.2, 5 and 6 who were appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk all in the pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590/- approached the writ Court with the following prayers: 3 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith grant seniority to the petitioners from the date from which other similarly situated recommended candidates by the Bihar Public Service Commission have been appointed in service, with all consequential benefits. (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to forthwith fix the pay scale of the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, on the ground that the employees, who have been recommended and appointed along with the same recommendation order, have been appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/ but, arbitrarily the petitioners have been posted to the posts, for which they have not made their applications i.e. the posts of Lower Division Clerk and as such, they have been appointed in the lower pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- and hence the petitioners may be released the arrears of difference of salary with effect from the date from which the other similarly situated recommended employees have been appointed in the service. And/Or For granting such other relief / reliefs, to which the petitioners may be found entitled to by this Hon'ble Court. 2.
Decision
The only plea urged on behalf of the writ petitioners who are herein the respondent nos.6 to 10 (now referred to as respondents) was that on account of delay on the part of the authorities their appointment was postponed for about 4 years and, therefore, their seniority should be reckoned from the date the appellants who were the respondent nos.6 to 24 before the writ Court have been appointed. 3. To support the aforesaid plea, the respondents referred to an order passed in “Dr. Madhu Mishra v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” in W.P(S) No.2371 of 2017 and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” (2005) 8 SCC 454. 4. The writ Court has accepted the proposition put forth on behalf of the respondents that they are entitled for seniority with effect from 28th January 2004 when the appellants were appointed. 5. The writ Court has held as under: “7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the selection list of this petitioners and the private respondents have been published simultaneously rather by way of letter, the selection list was pursuant to one advertisement. The private respondents were appointed on 28.01.2004 but for no fault, on behalf of the petitioners, their case have been left out and finally the BPSC by letter dated 15.07.2004 communicated to the appointing authority that they appointed 12 petitioners from the candidates who were selected along with the private respondents of this writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioners have been appointed w.e.f. April, 2008 when the selection process had begun from the 4 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 issue of advertisement, the selection process was delayed, so far as the petitioners are concerned, unnecessarily which was beyond the control of the petitioners and they have been asked to suffer only on the account of delay on the part of the appointing authority or the commission for which the petitioners cannot be held responsible. Moreover, the petitioners are not seeking any financial gain and petitioners are praying only for notional promotion at least w.e.f. the date of filing of this writ petition or notional benefits to the petitioner at least w.e.f. the date of appointment of private respondents. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for notional promotion w.e.f. the date the private respondents have been appointed. The respondents shall do so within 8 weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order so far as the notional seniority of the petitioners are concerned. The appointment letter dated 29.04.2008 is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be provided notional seniority with effect from 28.01.2004. The petitioner will not be entitled for financial gain . 9. In view of the observations and directions made herein above, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.” 6. The aforesaid order was modified by an order dated 22nd January 2021, to the following effect: “It appears that in the operative part of order dated 24.07.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6589 of 2012, inadvertently it has been typed as notional promotion in place of notional posting as Assistant in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- (pre-revised). Let it be read as notional posting as Assistant in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- (pre-revised). Further direction of modifying appointment letter on notional seniority has also been inadvertently typed whereas it should be notional appointment letter. Let it be read as notional appointment letter in place of notional seniority. In view of the fact that the appointment letter dated 29.04.2008 is modified, in that view of the matter, the petitioners will not be entitled for arrears of such scale however, petitioners will be entitled for that from the date of passing of order i.e. 24.07.2019. Order dated 24.07.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6589 of 2012 is modified to above extent. Let this order be part of order dated 24.07.2019.” 7. The aforesaid directions issued by the writ Court which according to the appellants have caused serious prejudice to them are under challenge on the ground that the writ Court exceeded its jurisdiction while modifying the appointment letter and, as a consequence thereof, their rank in the seniority list has been adversely affected. Another objection taken by the respondents is that the writ Court did not advert to the specific objections raised by the State of Jharkhand while issuing the aforesaid directions. The learned State counsel has submitted that the delay caused in appointment of the respondents was on account of their own lapses. 8. Briefly stated, pursuant to Advertisement No.25 of 1998 which 5 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 was issued inviting applications for appointment on various posts including Assistant-cum-Clerk, Accounts Clerk (Senior) and Revenue Karamchari a list of successful candidates was published on 25th July 2002 in which 59 candidates including the appellants and the respondents were included. Pursuant thereto, the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short, “BPSC”) forwarded its recommendation for appointment of 46 candidates through communication dated 21st January 2003 while recommendation in respect of the other successful candidates was kept pending. Following the aforesaid recommendation, the appointment of 46 candidates from the Bokaro district was made on 28th January 2004 – the appellants are such appointees. That was so done also in compliance of a direction issued by the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 20th February 2008. The other left out successful candidates which included six of the respondents were finally appointed and an order in this regard was issued vide letter dated 29 th April 2008. More than 4 years thereafter, the respondents approached the writ Court by filing W.P(S) No.6589 of 2012 on 29th October 2012 which, as noticed above, has been disposed of in terms of the order dated 24th July 2019 as modified by the order dated 22nd January 2021. 9. The following pleadings in the writ petition refer to the foundation laid by the respondents herein to seek seniority with the appellants: “7. That it is humbly stated that in terms of the said advertisement, the petitioners have made their applications. for being considered for appointment by making an application for different posts priority-wise i.e. (i)Assistant/Clerk (ii) Accounts Clerk (Senior) and (iii) Revenue Karamchari and the pay scale of all these posts are same and similar i.e. Rs. 1200-1800/- (pre-revised) except the post of Revenue Karamchari. By way of an example, one of the application formats is being annexed herein below. 8. That it is humbly stated that the petitioners have appeared in the examination and have been declared successful by the final result, published by the Bihar Public Service Commission under the seal and signature of the Controller of Examination of Bihar Public Service Commission in the daily newspaper, namely, Hindustan, dated 25.07.2002. 9. That it is humbly stated that thereafter, the Under Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, has made a penal in order of merit vide the list prepared on 21.01.2003 and in the said list, names of the petitioners appeared at serial nos. 4, 8, 10, 20, 22 and 23 and accordingly, the said list has been sent under the signature of the Under Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, for appointing them in service. 6 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 10. That it is humbly stated that on the basis of the merit list and covering letter dated 31.03.2003 all the candidates whose names are appearing in the said merit list have been appointed except 23 successful candidates, including these six petitioners as would be apparent from communication issued by the respondent no.2 dated 13th December 2003. 11. That it is humbly stated that in fact, the other successful candidates, who have been recommended along with the petitioners, have already been appointed on 28.01.2004, would be apparent from the appointment letters and by way of example two of the appointment letters as contained memo nos. 25 and 26, both dated 28.01.2004 are being annexed herein below. 12. That it is humbly stated that likewise the appointment letters, as annexed herein above, all the recommended candidates have also been appointed in the year, 2004 itself on different dates save and except 23 successful candidates, including these six petitioners. 13. That it is humbly stated that with respect to 23 candidates, the Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna, has issued one communication on 12.09.2004, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, in which a fresh recommendation has again been sent with respect to 12 successful candidates, which was done after conducting an inquiry with respect to their candidature in which the names of these six petitioners have also appeared with a direction to appoint them after being satisfied with respect to their respective documents. 14. That it is humbly stated that thereafter, the respondent no.2 has issued one direction, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, dated 20th February, 2008, directing him to take necessary action for appointment of the 12 recommended candidates, who have been recommended vide letter no. 426 dated 15.07.2004.” 10. On a glance at the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents what at once comes to the mind of the Court is that between 21st January 2003 to 20th February 2008 the respondents did not raise any grievance or make representation for delay in their appointment. The State of Jharkhand has taken a specific stand in the counter-affidavit that appointment of other successful candidates was suspended for verification of records. In this regard, the stand taken in paragraph nos.13 to 17 of the counter-affidavit dated 18th January 2013 filed in the writ proceeding are relevant, which are as under: “13. That it is stated and submitted that in this very letter, it was mentioned that appointment of candidates on merit list no. 03, 04, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 20, 23, 24, 30 and 32 were to be suspended for further verification. The six petitioners are amongst those 12 candidates, whose recommendation for appointment was made by BPSC vide its letter dated 15.07.2004 and accordingly based on it, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand issued directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro for their appointmebnt vide letter no.998 dated 20.02.2008. 14. That it is stated and submitted that the remaining candidates who were free from the purview of further investigation and had been recommended for appointment by BPSC's letter no. 1092 dated 31.03.2003, subsequently they were given appointment letter 7 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 vide letter no. 448 dated 27.01.2004 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 15. That it is stated and submitted that after the appointments were done, a letter no. 1543/ Finance, dated 10.07.2004 from the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand was received. 16. That it is stated and submitted that the said letter clearly mentioned that the post of clerk whose pay scale was 4000-100- 6000 would be from the date of issue of the letter demerged as Lower Divisional Clerk and Upper Divisional Clerk with pay scales of Rs. 3050-4590 and Rs. 4000-6000 respectively and any new appointment shall be in the post of Lower Divisional Clerk with a pay scale of 3050-4590. 17. That it is stated and submitted that since all the six petitioners were appointed in the year 2008, so in pursuance of the Finance Department's letter no. 1543/ Finance dated 10.07.2004, they were appointed in the posts of Lower Divisional Clerk/Junior Accounts Clerk with a pay scale of Rs.3050-4590.” 11. Mr. Amit Kumar, the learned SC(Mines)-II appearing for the State of Jharkhand has made submissions with reference to the aforesaid stand taken by the State of Jharkhand to support the appellants' plea that the writ Court has issued such directions which cannot be countenanced in law. The learned State counsel submits that the delay caused in appointment of the respondents was not on account of any deliberate or negligent act on the part of the authorities of the State of Jharkhand nor such delay was caused on account of any illegal act on their part. The learned State counsel has further submitted that the direction by the writ Court for posting of the respondents in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/-(pre-revised) has been issued in teeth of the Resolution dated 10th July 2004 of the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand. 12. At the outset, we may indicate that in “Jatinder Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjuab & Ors.” (1985) 1 SCC 122 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Public Service Commission is merely a recommendatory body and any recommendation made by it does not imply automatic appointment. In “S.K. Saha v. Prem Prakash Agarwal” (1994) 1 SCC 431 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the writ Court need not grant even notional promotion but for any valid reason. In “S.K. Saha” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as 13. under : “8. There cannot be any dispute that the appointment of the appellant, according to rules, was made on basis of the recommendation of the Commission on May 12, 1960. In this background, there was no occasion to take into consideration the period when the appellant was continuing on ad hoc basis, 8 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 especially, during the period when the post itself was a non- gazetted post. The appellant was given seniority w.e.f. January 4, 1957, but the post of the Foreman which the appellant was holding itself became a gazetted post since January 16, 1959. Any officiation on the post when it was a non-gazetted post cannot be held to be a continuous officiation on the post so as to entitle the appellant to count that period towards his continuous officiation. The High Court has rightly held that while appointing him on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission, the date of appointment could not have been ante-dated and made to be effective w.e.f. January 4, 1957. This Court has repeatedly struck down and decried any attempt on the part of the appointing authority to give a notional seniority from a retrospective date, especially, when this process affects the seniority of those who have already entered into the service. .........” 14. In service jurisprudence right to appointment on a particular post or in a particular pay-scale or even at a particular place is not even a statutory right of a government employee. The law is well-settled that mere recommendation for appointment or a candidate finding place in the select list does not confer any right on the selected candidate to seek appointment. The employer may for a variety of reasons choose not even to go ahead with the select list and make appointment. The only requirement in law is that the decision of the employer must be a reasonable and logical decision taken in the public interest. In “Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India” (1991) 3 SCC 47 a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a candidate in the select list has no right to seek mandamus upon the respondent for a direction for his appointment on the basis of such selection. The writ Court is required to address the aforesaid fundamental issues before entertaining a writ petition claiming seniority from a particular date because a claim of seniority involves whole lot of consequences which may ensue to the entire cadre and affect seniority of several others who have already born in the cadre prior to the claimant. Therefore, wherever a decision has to be taken by the writ Court to grant seniority to a person from a retrospective date, even notional promotion, the writ Court is required to consider the affidavit-in-opposition and if the affidavit of the State- respondent is perfunctory or self-defeating to ask for fresh affidavit with complete facts and details before a decision is taken for grant of seniority from a back date. 15. While such are the requirements in law, the writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to bear 9 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 in mind that the prerogative writs which are plenary in nature can be exercised only in furtherance of justice. This also has to be necessarily considered by the writ Court whether the petitioner has laid sufficient foundation for seeking the relief and whether such relief should be granted notwithstanding opposition by the State-respondent. 16. For the sake of fullness, we would record that none of the aforesaid issues have been addressed to and dealt with by the writ Court while issuing the impugned direction as contained in the order dated 24th July 2019. And, just to repeat that the writ petition was filed about 4 years after the respondents were appointed on 29th February 2008. 17. The State of Jharkhand has provided plausible and sufficient explanation for delay in the appointment of the respondents. This has also been specifically pleaded that appointment of the respondents was made in pay-scale of Rs.3050-4590/- pursuant to the Notification dated 10th July 2004 of Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand. In this context, we may indicate that the Notification dated 10th July 2004 was not under challenge before the writ Court and, therefore, it was binding and the State of Jharkhand is required to follow and implement the said Notification. So, the writ Court could not have issued a direction to the respondent-State to place the respondents in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000/- contrary to what has been provided under the Notification dated 10th July 2004. This does not need any reiteration that the writ Court has no powers to issue a direction contrary to the substantive provisions of a Statute, Statutory Rules and Regulations [refer, “Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India” (1998) 4 SCC 409]. 18. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the findings of the writ Court that the respondents were denied appointment on account of delay on the part of the State-respondents and thus entitled for notional postings with effect from 28th January 2004 are based on correct appreciation of the facts and materials on record. It is further submitted that a similar issue has already been decided by the Patna High Court in CWJC No.13577 of 2006 wherein the Court has held as under: Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused “5. the instructions of the State Government contained in letter dated 20th December, 2000, Annexure-5, I am of the view that when the 10 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 selection process had begun by issue of Advertisement, there was one post of Assistant-cum-Typist in the scale of Rs.1200-18,00/- and the selection process was delayed unnecessarily which was beyond the control of the petitioners and they are being asked to suffer only on account of the delay of appointing authority or the Commission for which petitioners cannot be held responsible in any manner. Even in view of Clause (5) of the instructions contained in letter dated 20th December, 2000, Annexure-5 if the authorities were not inclined to appoint the petitioners in the revised scale of the advertised post they ought to have cancelled the advertisement and the selection process but once they have not chosen to cancel the advertisement and the selection process then they have to appoint the petitioners in the corresponding revised scale of the post advertised in Annexure-1. In the circumstances, the appointment letter of the 6. petitioners bearing Memo No.549 dated 7th June, 2004 and Memo No. 150 dated 21.3.2005, Annexure-4 and 4/A is modified to the extent that the petitioners are directed to be appointed in the pay- scale of Rs.4000-6,000/-. Consequential benefit to the petitioners of the higher pay-scale be given to them as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 19. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has extensively referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala & Ors.” (2020) 5 SCC 230, “Surendra Narain Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.” (1998) 5 SCC 246 and “Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.” (2008) 7 SCC 728 to submit that the respondents have a right in law to claim seniority from the date others selected in the same selection process have been appointed. 20. In the circumstances of this case, we do not see any substance in the aforesaid submissions. In the first place, the plea of parity is not available to the respondents. They have failed to demonstrate that the cause of delay was solely attributable to the State authorities. On the contrary, the State of Jharkhand has shown reasons for the delay in appointment of the respondents. One of the reasons was a suspicion regarding their candidature due to which further verification was conducted and their documents were scrutinized. Only upon completing such exercises, the Commission cleared their name and sent recommendation for their appointment. Secondly, the judgments referred to by the learned senior counsel for the respondents have been rendered in different fact-situation and are not applicable in the case of the respondents. In “C. Jayachandran”, the litigation which followed appointment of the candidates in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge spread over a period of about a decade. C. Jayachandran was originally 11 L.P.A No.263 of 2021 given seniority at serial no.41 which was above at least 3 candidates. However, he was placed lower in seniority by virtue of the order passed by the High Court. Since his seniority position was never challenged by at least those who ranked above him by virtue of the Court's order, aggrieved by his placement lower in the seniority list, C. Jayachandran made a representation before the competent authority. Not only that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that C. Jayachandran was excluded from selection on account of an illegal act of the High Court while granting moderation of marks to others. Apparently, the facts in “C. Jayachandran” were entirely different from the facts brought on record in the present case. In “Surendra Narain Singh” the question involved was inter se seniority of Munsifs who were recruited in two different advertisements for recruitment. Similarly, in“Balwant Singh Narwal” the selection process was halted after making 16 appointments on account of the intervening litigation which finally concluded by virtue of an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So, those were the specific reasons the petitioners therein who were not selected along with others had approached the Court and a direction was issued for reckoning their seniority from the date other similarly situated persons were appointed. 21. In summation, the writ Court's order is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, the order dated 24th July 2019 passed in W.P(S) No.6589 of 2012 is set-aside. 22. L.P.A No.263 of 2021 is allowed and, consequently, W.P(S) No.6589 of 2012 is dismissed. 23. I.A No.9834 of 2022 is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid order. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 25th January 2023 sudhir/N.A.F.R.