IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2294 of 2003
Gopal Chandra Manjhi ...... Petitioner
Vrs.
State of Jharkhand & ors. ...... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA
---------
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashutosh Choubey, Advocate
For the State: J.C. to S.C.-II
---------
03/ 11.12.2008
This writ petition has been preferred to quash the
office order vide memo no. 1064 dated 28.12.1998, issued
under the signature of respondent no.6, whereby, the
appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled with effect
from the date of issuance of the order. The aforesaid order
has been issued in the light of the directions issued by the
Government in the Department of Rural Development
Department vide Memo No. 2065 dated 30.5.1998, No.3961
dated 5.9.1998 as well as letter no.770 dated 26.11.1998,
issued under the signature of Secretary to the
Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. The
petitioner has also prayed for quashing the direction
contained in Memo No. 2065 dated 20.5.1998, issued under
the signature of Deputy Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Now Jharkhand, and
Memo No. 3961 dated 5.9.1998 issued under the signature
of Engineer-in-Chief -cum- Special Secretary -cum-
Additional Commissioner, Rural Engineering Organization,
Rural Development Department, whereby, the
Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization
Works Circle, Dumka has been directed to terminate the
service of the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by
the High Court.
Further prayer has been made for a direction
commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner for appointment to Class III post of
Correspondence Clerk in Rural Engineering Works Circle,
Dumka for which his name was earlier forwarded and
recommended by the Employment Exchange, Dumka.
Petitioner has also prayed for holding his appointment made
vide order no.560 dated 17.7.1995 as legal, valid and in
accordance with law.
2.
The respondents in their counter affidavit at
paragraph no.8 have submitted as under:
“That with reference to the statements made in paragraph 3(xi) of
the writ application under reply, it is stated that as there was only one
vacancy of Correspondence Clerk in General Category, therefore, the
petitioner could not be appointed as Correspondence Clerk in Class III
post whose name had appeared in serial no. (2) of the Merit list in
General Category. However, his recruitment to Class IV post was done
on consideration of his application against the vacant post.”
The fact remains that the impugned order dated
28.12.1998 was without any notice and without assigning
any reason vide which the appointment of the petitioner was
cancelled on 17.7.1995. It is also an admitted position that
the appointment of the petitioner was by way of selection
through Employment Exchange, which meets the test of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In paragraph
no.8 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have also
submitted that the petitioner’s name figured at serial no. 2 of
merit list in General Category and he was recruited to Class
IV post on his request/application against a vacant post.
It does not stand to reason as to on what ground did
the respondents cancel the appointment of the petitioner
when he was eligible and selected and the post was
available. Even otherwise the hurdle of Class III post was
given a goby because the petitioner himself opted for Class
IV post and was appointed.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, the impugned order dated 28.12.1998, issued
under the signature of respondent no.6, the Superintending
Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization Works Circle,
Dumka, is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to consider the claim of the
petitioner for appointment on Class IV post in the light of his
appointment letter dated 17.7.1995. However, it goes
without saying that in case there is anything against the
petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to initiate
proceeding in accordance with law.
This writ petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 17.7.1995 is quashed and there will be no order as to
cost.
(Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.)
A.K.Verma/