The High Court · 2016
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. Rev No. 84 of 2019 --------- 1. Rabinder Kumar Gupta, age 36 yrs, s/o late Bangali Saw, r/o village-Kaili, PO-Banglwa, PS-Dharhara, District-Munger 2. Sanjay Kumar Ray, age 37 yrs, s/o Shri Khudu Ray, r/o vill.- Chhoti, Aliganj, PO & PS-Pakur, District-Pakur 3. Raj Kumar Pandit, age 43 yrs. s/o Prem Sagar Pandit, r/o vill.- Gokulpur, PO & PS-Pakur, District-Pakur 4. Dinesh Kumar Rajak, aged about 28 years, s/o Kishan Rajak, r/o village-Barharwa, Hatpara, PS-Barharwa, PO-Barharwa, District-Sahibganj 5.Nilam Joyesh Soren @ Neelam Joyce Soren, aged about 45 years, w/o Mashi Charan Hembom, present Add: village Church Road, Dhanuspuja, District-Pakur, PO & PS-Pakur 6.Raj Kumar Mandal, aged 36 years, s/o Shri Arjun Mandal, r/o village-Karantola, Gopalpur, PO-Baniadih, PS-Thakur Gagdi, District-Godda, present address: Chhoti Aliganj Pakur, PO & PS Pakur, District Pakur 7.Zamil Akhtar Ansari, age 37 years, s/o Md. Jamal Ansari, r/o village-Wipatpur, PO-Torai, PS-Hiranpur, District-Pakur 8.Ritesh Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/o Sasti Raut, r/o village- Kali Tala, PO and PS-Pakur, District-Pakur 9.Anil Kumar Shukla, aged about 27 years, s/o Satyendra Kumar Shukla, r/o Annapurna Colony, PO & PS-Pakur, District-Pakur 10.Anoli Kisku, aged about 45 years, s/o Chhunu Kisku, r/o village-Jagdishpur, PO & PS-Maheshpur, District-Pakur 11.Sanjay Sinha, aged about 38 years, s/o late Jagarnath Sinha, r/o village-Gawal Para, PO &PS-Pakur, District-Pakur ... Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Bhawan, PO-Dhurwa, PS-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi. 2.The Deputy Commissioner, PO-Pakur, PS-Pakur, District-Pakur ... Opposite Parties (Through V.C)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner For the State : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Harshpreet Singh, AC to GP-V Order No. 6/Dated: 24 th June 2023 --------- The petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 23rd November 2016 passed in WP(S) No. 6745 of 2012. 2. Before this Review Petition was filed fifteen persons who were petitioners in WP(S) No. 6745 of 2012 approached the Letters 2 C. Rev. 84 of 2019 Patent Court in LPA No. 29 of 2017 to challenge the aforesaid order of the writ Court. 3. In paragraph no. 4 of the order dated 16th July 2018, the Letters Patent Court has made the following observations: “4. In view of this disputed question of fact which have been stated by the respondents-authorities in their counter affidavit filed in W.P.(S) No. 6745 of 2012, all these appellants (original petitioners) were not daily workers at all, and hence, 20 marks could not have been allotted during the interview process in the year 2010. These disputed questions of fact have to be settled by leading cogent and convincing evidences before the competent trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the original petitioners submitted that now they have several evidences that they were daily rated workers as stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by these appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal.” 4. The Letters Patent Court has further referred to the judgments in “Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot” (1974) 2 SCC 706, “State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees' Welfare Assn.” (2006) 1 SCC 567 and “Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana” (2006) 9 SCC 256 to form an opinion as recorded in paragraph no. 4 (supra). 5. In LPA No. 29 of 2017, this Court has made the following observations: “8. However, if the appellants are claiming that they have enough evidences to show that they were daily wagers, then they can approach before the Single Judge by way of revision application, or, they can file a Civil Suit before the competent trial Court as per section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” 6. Now Civil Review No. 84 of 2019 has been filed on the ground that inadvertently several documents which would establish that the petitioners were working as daily wagers could not be produced before the writ Court. 7. In the order dated 23rd November 2016 passed in WP(S) No. 6745 of 2012 and analogous cases, the writ Court has held as under: “7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners submitted their applications by the due date, that is, 30.06.2010 and they appeared in the written examination. Advertisement No.01/2010 was issued for appointment on the vacant post of Peon/Class-IV employees in the Collectoriate and other offices under the State Government. For such appointments a panel was to be prepared and, as noticed above, in the meeting of the District Establishment Committee held on 05.10.2012, it was decided to allot 20 marks to the applicants working on Grade- IV posts on daily-wages. In the Advertisement, it is reflected 3 C. Rev. 84 of 2019 that the candidates working in Pakur district shall be given preference. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioners are not working on Grade-IV posts on daily-wages and thus, they cannot be awarded 20 marks. It has been denied that the petitioners who are working as Computer Operators fall under the said category. It has been stated that after the written test, the candidates were called for cycling test and thereafter, interview was held from 02.11.2012. Further stand of the respondents is that the petitioners working under the District Rural Development Agency are not working in the Government Offices. In this context, I find that in “Uma Kant Sahay” case it has not been held by this Court that the employees working under the District Rural Development Agency are the State Government employees. Similar objection has been raised in respect of other petitioners. Insofar as, petitioner nos. 17 to 24 are concerned, it is pleaded that they are working as Messengers on daily-wages and they are paid for the days when their services are required. The petitioners have filed a supplementary-affidavit dated 12.08.2015, in which a copy of order dated 31.05.2012 has been annexed. Referring to the said letter and orders dated 03.08.2013 and 06.02.2009, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are regular daily-wages employees working under the Nazarat as Ummidwar Peon. This submission is mis- conceived. Endorsement on letter dated 31.05.2012 corroborates the stand taken by the respondents inasmuch as, the petitioner no.18 was paid only Rs. 200/- in a month. Obviously, he is not working on regular basis. In the present proceeding, the petitioner nos. 17 to 24 have not pleaded that they were appointed in a pay-scale equivalent to Class-IV employees. There is no material on record which would indicate that the petitioners employed as Ummidwar Messengers are working on daily wages on regular basis. The payment made to these petitioners would indicate that they are engaged as per the needs. ” 8. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the order passed in WP(S) No. 831 of 2013 in which the writ Court has issued a direction to the respondent-authority to consider the representation made by the applicants therein. The learned counsel for the review petitioners is seeking a similar direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur to take into account the documents produced by the review petitioners to establish that as on the relevant date they were working as daily wagers and thus entitled for award of 20 marks. 9. This Court is conscious of the position that the advertisement was issued in the year 2010 and the appointment process was completed long back. However, having regard to the fact that the applicants in WP(C) No. 831 of 2013 are similarly situated and were applicants pursuant to Advertisement No.01 of 4 C. Rev. 84 of 2019 2010, to maintain judicial discipline and proprietary, a liberty is given to the petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. However, it is made clear that the representation, if any, made by the petitioners can be considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur only if (i) there are posts still vacant which were advertised vide Advertisement No. 01 of 2010, (ii) the petitioners have not crossed the maximum age, and (iii) there is no other legal hurdle for considering their representation, such as, coming into force of new rules. The order of this Court shall not be construed as if the petitioners have a right of appointment. 10. Civil Review No. 84 of 2019 is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Amit/Tanuj