BIRENDRA KUMAR MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel on behalf of the State.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that his name figured in the list of selected candidates, as he stood at 33rd position, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/2008, but there were only 15 vacancies and the top 15 candidates from the list have been appointed on the post of Water Carrier (Jal Bahak).

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was in the list, he should have been given the alternative post of Barber. Counsel for the respondents has stated that since a separate application was required to be moved for the post of Barber, which he has admittedly not made, but on the contrary, he states that he has given a representation and the same has not been decided till date. On the basis of such representation, he claims appointment on the post of Barber. Learned counsel, in this context, has referred to and relied upon a decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Dhaneshwar Prasad Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2009 1 JLJR 243.