IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P.(S). No. 115 of 2007
...
1. Ranjana Kumari
2. Chandra Shekhar Yadav
3. Madan Mohan Prasad
4. Renu Kumari
5. Kumari Swetambara
6. Arjun Kumar
7. Dinesh Mahto ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human
Resource Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary Education Directorate, Department
of Human Resource Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : - J.C. to G.P.-III.
...
08/ 14.12.2009
Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that after having issued letters of
appointment to them, the respondents, by the impugned letter, have
terminated the services of the petitioners, which act on the part of the
respondents, according to the petitioners, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to
the principles of natural justice.
3. In response to the advertisement issued by the State Government
through the J.P.S.C. for filling up the vacancies in the post of trained
teachers, the petitioners had submitted their applications. In consonance with
the requirements as contained in the advertisement, the petitioners had
enclosed the certificates pertaining to their claim for reservation in the
Scheduled Caste category. When the applications were received, petitioners
like several others, were issued admit cards and they were allowed to appear
at the written examination followed by interview and finally a merit list was
published in which the names of the petitioners have also transpired.
4. However, on final scrutiny of documents, it was found that the
petitioners had produced caste certificates which they had obtained from the
concerned authorities in the State of Bihar. Upon an objection being taken
against such certificates, the petitioners produced fresh certificates which
they had obtained from the competent authority in the State of Jharkhand.
Upon receiving such certificates, the concerned department had sought for a
guideline from the department head as to whether the certificates produced
subsequently by the petitioners should be accepted or not. It appears that by
way of clarifications and instructions, the department head had issued a
clarificatory letter under which instruction was issued to verify the
genuineness of all such certificates which the candidates had produced after
obtaining the same from the competent authorities of the State of Jharkhand
and then, if the certificates were found genuine, to proceed further.
It further appears that the certificates which were produced by the
petitioners, were subjected to verification and upon being found genuine,
letters of appointment were issued to each of the petitioners. However, on
perusal of letter of appointment, it appears that the same was issued
indicating that the letter of appointment was issued temporarily and subject to
further scrutiny of the certificates and other testimonials which the petitioners
had submitted.
5. It appears that a similar controversy in respect of the caste certificate
which the several candidates had produced and which were obtained from the
concerned authorities of the states other than Jharkhand, when not being
accepted by the respondents, was referred to a Bench of this Court and
subsequently the matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Kavita Kumari & Others vide W.P.(S) No. 578 of
2004 and analogous cases.
After considering the entire issues involved, this Court had recorded
its observations along with its directions in the following terms :-
“It has been brought to our notice that many persons
though have enclosed the caste certificates, issued by the
district authorities of the State of Bihar, in the writ petitions
certain certificates, issued by the district authorities of the
State of Jharkhand, have also been enclosed to suggest that
they belong to the State of Jharkhand. Such individual cases
cannot be scrutinized by this Court nor such claim can be
determined, which can be taken care of by the competent
authorities of the State. If any certificate, enclosed by one or
other petitioner, issued by the district authorities of the State
of Jharkhand prior to submission of the application forms,
has been enclosed, then the authorities may consider the
case of such person for appointment against the reserved
categories, if it is found that such person belongs to the State
of Jharkhand. But those, who have enclosed the certificates,
issued by the district authorities, now fall within the State of
Bihar, or the certificates, issued by the district authorities of
Uttar Pradesh or any other State, cannot claim reservation
for appointment in the services of the State of Jharkhand.
Similarly, those, who have obtained certificates from the
district authorities of the State of Jharkhand after the last
date of filing of the application form, those certificates also
cannot be taken into consideration to grant benefit of
reservation”.
6. It appears that in the light of the above observations and declarations
as contained in the Division Bench judgement of this Court, the respondent
State had terminated the appointment of the petitioners vide the impugned
letter and against which the petitioners are aggrieved.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit firstly that the
directions as contained in the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the
case of Kavita Kumari (Supra) would not apply to the present petitioners
since the present petitioners were not impleaded as party in the earlier writ
applications. Secondly, the petitioners had declared from the very beginning
even in their respective application forms, that they are residents of the State
of Jharkhand. Although they had initially submitted caste certificate issued by
the concerned authorities of the State Bihar along with their application
forms, but subsequently on being insisted upon, they had obtained their caste
certificates issued by the appropriate authorities in the State of Jharkhand.
The petitioners, have therefore the support of two factors firstly, that they are
permanent residents of Jharkhand and secondly, that they had obtained caste
certificates issued by the authorities concerned in the State of Jharkhand.
8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents would argue that
admittedly, though appointment letters were issued to the petitioners but the
same was declared as temporary and made subject to further scrutiny of the
testimonials attached by the petitioners to their respective applications.
Admittedly the petitioners did not submit their caste certificates issued by any
competent authority of the State of Jharkhand along with their individual
applications. Rather, the certificates which they had enclosed along with their
respective applications were though issued by the authorities other than those
of the State of Jharkhand. It is further explained that since the petitioners had
submitted caste certificates subsequently after obtaining the same from the
concerned authorities of the State of Jharkhand, the appointment letters were
issued to them in consonance with the instructions received from the head of
department but later, when the position was duly clarified by the observations
and directions contained in the order of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Kavita Kumari (Supra), the respondents had no option but to
cancel the appointment letters of the petitioners on the ground that they had
not submitted their caste certificates obtained from the competent officers of
the State of Jharkhand along with their respective application forms.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through
the records, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to
make out a definite case for grant of the reliefs as claimed for by them in this
writ application.
10. The directions as issued by the Division Bench of this Court are clear
and specific and the same would apply in general, to all similarly situated
candidates and cannot be treated as confined only to the writ petitioners
whose cases were considered by the Division Bench. Admittedly, the
petitioners had not submitted their caste certificates issued by any competent
authority within the State of Jharkhand along with their application forms.
Such caste certificates were obtained much later. In the direction as issued by
the Division Bench in the case of Kavita Kumari, it has been strictly
stipulated that those candidates who have obtained certificates from the
district authorities of the State of Jharkhand after the last date of filing of the
application form, those certificates also cannot be taken into consideration to
grant benefit of reservation. This gives sufficient ground to the respondents
to cancel the appointment letters issued to the petitioners.
11. As regards the contention of the petitioners that before issuing the
termination letter, the petitioners have not been informed by any prior notice,
such Rule, in my opinion, would not apply to the petitioners’ case in view of
the fact that admittedly the letters of appointment issued to them were purely
temporary, as declared in the individual letters.
As regards the claim of the petitioners that by virtue of letters of
appointment, the petitioners had reported their joining and their services were
continuously taken from the date of their appointment till the date of issuance
of the impugned letter of termination, for a period of more than four years,
and yet the petitioners are not being paid any salary or any wages whatsoever,
the respondent authorities shall have to consider this aspect in accordance
with the demands of equity and natural justice. Apparently, at the time when
the letters of appointment were issued to the petitioners, the respondent
authorities did not maintain any reservation as regards the caste certificates
and other testimonials produced by the petitioners and had proceeded to issue
letters of appointment and to engage the services of the petitioners. It was
only after the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Kavita Kumari (Supra) that certain directions/guidelines were declared and
the respondents appear to have realized that the appointment letters issued to
the petitioners was improper. However, in view of the fact that the petitioners
did not voluntarily offer their services gratuitously and for all purposes they
had rendered services only in expectation of being paid their remuneration for
the services rendered, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their legitimate
claim for salary/wages for the period for which their services were taken by
the respondents.
12. Under the circumstances, this application is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to pay the stipulated salary/wages to the
petitioners for the period during which their services were engaged. Such
payment has to be made by the respondents within a period of two months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondent
State who, within 24 hours of the receipt of the copy of this order, shall
forward the same to the concerned authorities of the respondents including
the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
Birendra/