SURAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner for the post of Draftsman Mechanic, as he has been declared successful for Group-C post in Industrial Training Institution, State of Jharkhand under General category pursuant to Advertisement No.50 dated 08.09.2009 and taking into consideration the fact that though similarly situated candidates have been appointed vide letter No. San.San.5/Prashikshan (Niukti) II-237/2010 (Annexure3/1) issued by the department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand.

(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an Advertisement being Advertisement No.50 was published by the respondents for filling up altogether 504 posts under different trades under Department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner being eligible, applied for the trade of Draftsman Mechanic under General Category. Thereafter, admit card was issued to the petitioner and he appeared in the written examination and upon declared successful, he was called for counseling to be held on 10.02.2011 for the trade of Draftsman Mechanic, Category-General. Accordingly, he appeared in the counselling process, but appointment letter has not been issued to him. It is specific case of the petitioner that a total of 4 candidates were called for counseling in respect of all categories in trade of Draftsman Mechanic but appointment letter in favour of only two candidates was issued by the Respondents. Aggrieved thereto, some of the candidates had filed writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 5450, 5449, 5433, 5699, 5425, 5421, 5426, 5427, 5428, 5432, 5435 of 2015 and 1550, 702 of 2016 before this Court and this Court allowed the said writ petitions and in compliance of Court's order, some of them have been appointed, but the petitioner has not been appointed though he was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

(3.) ***