SAMIR KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking appointment/regularization on the post of Marketing Supervisor and for quashing the result published on 17.3.2005 in daily newspaper "Prabhat Khabar". The petitioner joined the post of Clerk-cum-Tax Collector in Bazar Samiti, Dumka on daily wages on 2.2.1976. The petitioner continued to work there and in the meantime, services of several other persons were regularized and the Marketing Board took a decision to regularize the services of persons working on daily wages however, the service of the petitioner was not regularized. The petitioner made several representations also and when his grievance was not redressed, the petitioner moved the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4697 of 1990 seeking regularization of his service as Marketing Supervisor. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20.11.1992 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of regularization of the service of the petitioner. Still, the service of the petitioner was not regularized and therefore, he again moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9198 of 1998(R) which was disposed of in the following terms:--

(2.) The respondents came out with an advertisement on 6.5.2004 for appointment of Marketing Supervisors. The petitioner applied for the said post however, when the result was published on 17.3.2005, the name of the petitioner did not figure as a successful candidate. The petitioner thereafter, made representation again to the authorities however, he was not given a regular appointment on the post of Marketing Supervisor and therefore, he was constrained to move this Court again.

(3.) Sri V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Marketing Board appears and submits that in compliance of order dated 6.9.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9198 of 1998(R) advertisement for filling up the post of Marketing Supervisor was issued and eligible candidates were selected. As the petitioner could not be declared successful he was not appointed on the post of Marketing Supervisor. Again, an Advertisement (No. 11 of 2006) was issued for appointment on the post of Marketing Supervisor. The petitioner applied in terms of the advertisement and appeared in the examination. The petitioner was selected and he was appointed on the post of Marketing Supervisor on 20.6.2008. Since the petitioner has been selected and appointed on the post of Marketing Supervisor his grievance has been redressed and thus, this writ petition has become infructuous.