SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

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 (Annexure4 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 . Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner was from the B.C. category, therefore, his candidature was considered under the General category, since there was only two categories, Scheduled Tribes and General. He has further argued that preference should have been given to the petitioner while considering the candidature of the petitioner, in view of the order passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda State Trading Division, Chaibasa, dated 17.03.2004 (Annexure4 to the writ petition). He has further argued that Shri Bharat Nayak and Shri Anand Nayak at serial No. 4 and 7 respectively of the select list were not in the merit list, therefore, their appointment is illegal and in their place, petitioner ought to have been given appointment. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel, has contended that petitioner was not given joining despite order dated 14.11.2003 passed by this Court for no fault of the petitioner. Hence, in view of order dated 14.11.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5889 of 2001, petitioner shall be deemed in service, therefore, is entitled for preference in the light of order dated 17.03.2004 passed by D.F.O. as well as order passed by this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 649 of 2002 and 658 of 2002.