NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the applicants-interveners-Jallaluddin Ansari, Anil Kumar Mishra and Uday Chandra Jha under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. Prayer has been made for vacating stay granted in W.P.(S) NO. 301 of 2009.

(2.) It has been, inter alia, stated that the said interim order was passed without impleading the interveners as party. According to the applicants, their interest has been hampered clue to the said exparte stay. The applicants had appeared in the examination held by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC for short) for appointment on the posts of Headmaster of Secondary Schools. The result of the said examination was published and the Petitioners have been selected for appointment. The selection has been also approved by the Government of Jharkhand, but they have not been appointed by the Government on the plea of stay order passed in W.P.(S) No. 301 of 2009.

(3.) This application has been contested by the writ Petitioners. It has been stated that the applicants have no locus standi to file application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, as at the relevant time-when the order was passed, they were not parties to the writ petition. By the said order dated 24.7.2009, time was granted on the prayer of the counsel for JPSC and, in the meanwhile, State-Respondents were directed not to make any further appointment on the basis of the revised list published by JPSC. Subsequently, the said order was modified after hearing the concerned parties by order dated 24.5.2010 whereby liberty has been given to the State-Respondents to make appointment against vacant posts of Headmaster of Secondary Schools out of the selected candidates whose names figured both in the first list well as in the revised list. The writ Petitioners along with several others were selected by JPSC and their names were recommended for appointment to the posts of Headmaster of Secondary Schools, but the State Government instead of appointing those selected candidates, issued a guideline to JPSC for making recommendation afresh. The JPSC on the basis of the said guideline revised the selection list and published a fresh list dropping the names of the candidates, who were originally selected by JPSC. Whether JPSC has got power to publish a revised list after publication of final result and making recommendation for appointment - is the main question raised in the writ petition. The applicants have intervened the matter at subsequent stage. There was no occasion to furnish a copy and other documents and of hearing the applicants, who were not before the Court: when the interim order was passed.