1. Niroj Kumar Choubey, aged about 56 years, s/o Late Subodh Narayan Choubey, r/o v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry &
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A No. 638 of 2022 1. Niroj Kumar Choubey, aged about 56 years, s/o Late Subodh Narayan Choubey, r/o Nahar Park, Near L.I.C. Office, Police Line Road, PO-Dumka, PS-Dumka, District-Dumka (Jharkhand) 2. Rajiv Kumar, aged about 57 years, s/o Late Sidheshwar Prasad Singh, r/o Village Barwan (Khurd), PO-Basantpur, PS-Basantpur, District Siwan (Bihar) ...… Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (Animal Husbandry), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO-Doranda, PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi 3. The Director, Department of Animal Husbandry & Fisheries (Animal Husbandry), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having office at Nepal House, Doranda, PO-Doranda, PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi 4. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries, Special Division, Dumka, PO-Dumka, PS-Dumka, District-Dumka 5. Rajendra Singh, s/o Sri Jwala Singh, r/o Benar Kaila, PO-Sara, PS-Sara, District-Nalanda (Bihar) 6. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, s/o Sri Muneshwar Pathak, r/o Labhari Khurd, Amba, PO-Amba, PS-Amba, District-Aurangabad (Bihar) 7. Ram Kishore Ojha, s/o Late Sitaram Ojha, r/o Pujara Pole, Gaushala, PO Pujara Pole, PS-Pujara Pole, District-Ranchi .....Respondents 8. Amod Kumar, s/o Sri Bishnudeo Prasad, r/o Vilage-Lodipur, PO-Lodipur, PS-Mehush, District-Sheikhpura (Bihar) …..Petitioner/Proforma Respondent -------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G-III Mr. Sharad Kaushal, AC to A.A.G-III Ms. Kabisha Goenka, AC to A.A.G-III --------------- O R D E R 30th January 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A No.801 of 2023 This application has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of delay of 118 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2 L.P.A No.638 of 2022 In this Interlocutory Application, the applicants have made statements to the effect that they made an application for obtaining a certified copy of the order dated 10th August 2022 only on 9th December 2022. This may be indicated at this stage itself that 30 days is the period of limitation for filing the Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a Single Judge of this Court and, in that context, we may further indicate that there is no explanation whatsoever offered by the applicants for not making an application for obtaining a certified copy of the aforesaid order within the period of limitation. Notwithstanding that, keeping in mind the history of litigation which has spanned over three decades and with a view to hear the applicants on the merits of the matter, we hereby condone the delay of 118 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, I.A No.801 of 2023 is allowed. L.P.A No. 638 of 2022 Niroj Kumar Choubey, Amod Kumar and Rajiv Kumar who were appointed on the post of Technical Assistants under Frozen Semen Bank Scheme at Dumka approached the writ Court in W.P(S) No.7724 of 2013, with the following prayers: “(i) That in the instant writ application, the petitioners are desirous of issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and/or direction(s) for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 1337 dated 21.09.2013 (Annexure17) issued under the signature of Principal Secretary (Respondent No.2) in rejecting the representations submitted pursuant to order dated 04.03.2013 in W.P. (S) No. 4882 of 2003 by this Hon’ble Court, when the petitioners had regularly worked to the post of Technical Assistants from 1990 to 2003. AND (ii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction to reinstate the petitioners to the post of Technical Assistants with all consequential benefits, when the petitioners have secured 25% marks in limited examination as conducted by the department and the juniors like respondent nos. 6 to 8 have been selected against the principle of equality.” 2. This present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Niroj Kumar Choubey and Rajiv Kumar against the writ Court's order dated 10th August 2022 whereby the writ Court has declined to interfere with the order contained in Memo No.1337 dated 21st September 2013. 3. By the aforesaid order dated 21st September 2013, the Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of 3 L.P.A No.638 of 2022 Jharkhand has rejected the representation filed by the aforesaid three persons. 4. Briefly stated, the appellants have pleaded that they were appointed on different dates on the post of Technical Assistants in Frozen Semen Bank, Dumka against sanctioned and vacant post on purely temporary basis. Niroj Kumar Choubey joined on 5th October 1990 and Rajiv Kumar joined on 25th April 1991 in the pay-scale of Rs.975-1540/-. The appellants have further pleaded that taking cognizance of some complaints regarding appointment on Class-III posts the Government of Jharkhand directed the Regional Development Officer of Santhal Pargana Division to cause an enquiry and submit the report. Accordingly, a report dated 17th February 1993 was submitted. It further appears that the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar, Patna vide its letter dated 16th April 1996 required certain informations as regards appointment made on Class-III posts by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry at Dumka. The case set-up by the appellants is that they were appointed in the Frozen Semen Project in view of exigency of the work and under the authority of the State Government. 5. Later on, a decision was taken to cancel the appointments made on the posts of Technical Assistants against which CWJC No.5533 of
Decision
1998 was moved by one of the Technical Assistants. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30th September 1999 while quashing the order of termination dated 12th June 1998. 6. A similar writ petition vide CWJC No.5480 of 1998 titled “Arun Kumar Singh and another v. State of Bihar” was also decided on the similar lines by the order dated 30th September 1999, which order was challenged by the State of Bihar by filing L.P.A No.325 of 2000 but without success. 7. While several other related litigations continued and, in the meantime, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar took decisions, one of the matters travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No.5342-5343 of 2003 which was finally disposed of by an order dated 23rd July 2003 titled “Uma Kant Sinha and others v. State of Jharkhand and others”. 8. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued the 4 L.P.A No.638 of 2022 following directions: “In this view of the matter, we direct the State of Jharkhand to consider at the earliest for recruiting Technical Assistant for the Semen Bank Project and to fill up the existing vacancies within a period of three months from today. For that purpose the respondent-State is directed to constitute a Selection Committee as per the existing Rules within a period of three months from today: (ii) The appellants whose services are terminated may apply to the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department within a period of one month for being re-appointed or for regularisation of their services. The Committee shall consider the eligibility, suitability, past record as well as the educational qualifications of the appellants as per the rules as on today. (iii) The Committee shall give relaxation of age and weightage over outsiders as directed by the High Court. However, if the appellants are found unsuitable for some reasons, it would be open to the Committee to reject their applications. Appropriate authority shall issue orders for appointment after considering the roster and the merit list, on available vacancies. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. We, however, make it clear that this case shall not be treated as precedent as we have decided it purely on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case.” 9. Still, the litigation by the Technical Assistants who were terminated from service however continued and different orders have been passed by this Court, one of such cases was in W.P(S) No.2130 of 2016 titled “Anand Mohan Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand”. 10. The appellants first came to this Court in W.P(S) No.4882 of 2003 to challenge the legality of the order of their termination from service vide Memo No. 2(Go) dated 20th May 2003 which was published in the daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar”. On the ground that they were validly appointed against sanctioned and vacant post and continued to work for more than a decade, they set up a plea that they were entitled for a similar benefit which has been accorded to the others in the light of the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5342- 5343 of 2003. 11. The orders passed in W.P(S) No.4837 of 2003 titled “Bijendra Singh v. State of Jharkhand” and in W.P(S) No. 2759 of 2019 titled “Dhirendra Kumar Karn & others v. State of Jharkhand” have also been referred to by the appellants to challenge the order of their termination from service. 12. At this stage, we may indicate that Bijendra Singh who was petitioner in W.P(S) No.4837 of 2003 finally could not get any relief from the Court. This Court in W.P(S) No. 2759 of 2019 titled “Dhirendra Kumar 5 L.P.A No.638 of 2022 Karn & others” has made the following observation: “20. This Court also finds that the impugned order passed by the respondents has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter and rejected the representation filed by the petitioners. The impugned order also takes into consideration the final outcome of the petitioner in W.P.(S). 4837 of 2003 (Bijendra Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand), who was ultimately not granted any relief by the respondents. This fact assumed importance on account of the fact that throughout it was the specific case of the petitioners that their case is identically situated as that of said Bijendra Singh.” 13. From the records of this case, we gather that W.P(S) No.4882 of 2003 was filed by four persons including the appellants to challenge the order of termination dated 20th May 2003 issued by the Regional Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Santhal Pargana Region, Dumka on the ground that the order of termination was issued without any show-cause notice to them. The writ Court having recorded the history of litigation and the stand taken by the rival parties, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: “Under the circumstances, the petitioners are required to submit detailed individual representation addressed to the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Jharkhand for regularization of their services. Upon receipt of such representations, the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department, Jharkhand shall consider and decide the same within a period of two months thereafter. It is clarified that while considering the representations, submitted by the petitioners, the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department shall also consider the factum of initial appointment of the petitioners, which was done by the Regional Directors. pursuant to the power given by the State Government and taken into regard the order passed by the Patna High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners. It is further clarified that before taking any final decision in this regard, the respondent authorities shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It is also clarified that in the event of allowing the representation, submitted by the petitioners, the respondent authorities shall reinstate the petitioners in service and shall pay all consequential benefits, permissible under the law, within eight weeks, thereafter. The respondent authorities are also directed to communicate the order passed on the representation that may be made by the petitioners.” 14. In compliance of the aforesaid direction passed by the writ Court in W.P(S) No.4882 of 2003, the Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand has passed a reasoned order dated 21st September 2013 whereby the claim of the appellants that they are similarly situated to the other Technical Assistants in respect of whom direction to grant weightage and age relaxation was passed 6 L.P.A No.638 of 2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been accepted. 15. This is the order dated 21st September 2013 which was challenged by the appellants along with Amod Kumar in W.P(S) No.7724 of 2013. The writ Court has elaborately dealt with each and every plea raised on behalf of the appellants and, as noticed above, formed an opinion that the appellants are not entitled to claim any benefit arising out of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5342-5343 of 2003. In that case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that: “We, however, make it clear that this case shall not be treated as precedent as we have decided it purely on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case”. 16. Undeterred even by that observation, Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants has endeavoured to press hard upon the Court to accept the proposition that the order passed by this Court in L.P.A No.426 of 2012 titled “Md. Irfan Gani and others v. State of Jharkhand and others” which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the appellants who are entitled for award of weightage of 90 marks and if that is done they would qualify for appointment. On this issue, all that we intend to record is that the said Md. Irfan Gani was one of such persons who was terminated from service by the common Notification dated 23rd October 1998 whereas the present appellants were terminated from service on 20th May 2003 which was published in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar”. Alongwith others, the appellants also applied pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2004-05 and did not qualify for appointment on the post of Technical Assistants. The plea of parity in award of additional 90 marks as was given to the others who were covered under the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5342-5343 of 2003 has been rejected by the Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Jharkhand. The reason assigned by the said authority in its order dated 21st September 2013 has been found in accordance with law by the writ Court and W.P(S) No.7724 of 2013 has been dismissed. 17. While so, at this stage, this Court shall not enter into the factual disputes sought to be raised by the appellants which even otherwise prima facie does not appear sustainable. The appellants have failed to demonstrate 7 L.P.A No.638 of 2022 any illegality committed in course of selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.01 of 2004-05. May be the writ petition filed by them vide W.P(S) No.4882 of 2003 was disposed of in 2013, what is also staring at the face of the appellants is that now two decades have passed in the process since the appellants were terminated from service. On their own account, all of them have almost approached the age of superannuation. Apparently, at this stage, no direction can be issued by this Court for a afresh consideration and, that too, when the appellants have miserably failed to make out any case for interference. 18. In view of the above, L.P.A No.638 of 2022 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 30th January 2023 sudhir/N.A.F.R.