LAWS(JHAR)-2012-8-11

SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On August 01, 2012
SURENDRA KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as daily wager. He was terminated from service, vide office order dated 02.11.1999. Petitioner has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5889 of 2001 challenging the order of termination as well as seeking regularisation of service.

(2.) THIS Court, vide order dated 14.11.2003, had found the termination order illegal and had directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularisation and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months. Vide order No. 29 dated 17.03.2004 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda State Trading Division, Chaibasa, regularisation sought by the petitioner was declined and it was observed that whenever vacancies against admissible sanctioned post of Class IV arise, the same shall be advertised and the case of the petitioner along with other similarly placed persons shall be considered afresh. Thereafter, vide Advertisement No. 01/0708, posts of Class IV employees were advertised. Petitioner had applied and was called for interview, vide letter dated 16.04.2007. Petitioner was not given appointment, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition.

(3.) MR. Vijayant Verma, J.C. to G.P. II, while referring to paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit has vehemently argued that, this Court in L.P.A. No. 649 of 2002 and 658 of 2002, vide order dated 24.01.2005, has directed to give preference to those who were working in the department as daily wage workmen while making the regular appointment. He further contends that all the 12 candidates appointed under the General category are those who were working in the department at the relevant time as daily wage workmen by giving preferences and relaxation. He has further submitted that since petitioner was admittedly, not working in the department at the time of issuance of the advertisement and at the time of interview, therefore, no preference was given to the petitioner.