IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.531 of 2011
Sanatan Rawani .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
For the Petitioner : None.
For the Respondents : J.C. to Sr.S.C.II
-----
2/11.07.2011
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated
12.4.2010, whereby the petitioner’s representation for consideration of his appointment
on Class-IV post has been rejected.
It has been stated that the petitioner along with others had earlier approached
this Court in W.P.(S) NO.145 of 2002. The said writ petition was disposed of directing
the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. By the impugned order
dated 12.4.2010, the petitioner’s representation for appointment on Class-IV post has
been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents. It has been stated that the petitioner
fulfilled all the criteria and his name was also included in the panel prepared for
appointment on Class-IV post, but while others were given appointment, the petitioner
was discriminated against. The respondents have also erroneously rejected the
petitioner’s representation.
Learned J.C. to Sr. S.C.II, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the
petitioner’s claim was considered by the Committee and it was found that the petitioner
has no valid claim for appointment and his representation has been accordingly
rejected.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that
the Chairman and Members of the Appointment Committee held a meeting on
17.10.2001 and decided to scrutinize the objections of the candidates. A panel was
prepared of 132 applicants against 66 posts. In the panel, name of the petitioner stands
at serial no.70. As there was only 66 vacancy, selected candidates up to serial No.66
were appointed. Since the petitioner’s name stands at serial no.70, he could not get
that opportunity. The petitioner’s objection/representation was also considered and in
view of the reason aforesaid, the same was rejected by speaking order. The allegation
of the petitioner that he has been denied appointment illegally is frivolous and without
any basis.
Having considered the facts and the submissions aforesaid, I find that the
Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar-respondent no.3 has duly considered the petitioner’s
representation and has recorded speaking reason. The said respondent found that the
petitioner’s name stood at serial no.70 in the panel and there was only 66 posts.
Persons whose names appeared up to serial No. 66 have been appointed. In that view,
the petitioner could not get the said opportunity.
I find no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order. There is, thus, no
ground to entertain this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
s.b.