PANKAJ RANA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs :

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages in May, 1981 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Waterways Division No. II, Chakardharpur and he worked there till May, 1990. By an administrative arrangement the charge of Waterways Division -II, Chakardharpur was taken over by the Executive Engineer, Laghubitarani Division No. 10 and thus, the service of the petitioner was also transferred under him. The petitioner continued to work there till December, 1992. When the service of the petitioner and other similarly situated daily wage employees was terminated, some of the employees moved the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 614 of 1993 (R), which was disposed of by order dated 18.03.1993 with a direction to the respondents to advertise the post and make appointment. Several other employees had also filed writ petitions and the matter went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18154 of 1999 and batch cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondents to make appointment in terms of Resolution dated 18.06.1993. The employees who had worked for more than 240 days prior to 01.08.1985, were to be considered for appointment. Subsequently, a meeting was convened by the Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand on 12.06.2002 and a list of all such employees who had worked for more than 240 days prior to 01.08.1985, was prepared and the name of the petitioner was also included in the said list. An advertisement was issued in the year, 2003 and the petitioner also applied. However, no decision was communicated to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1049 of 2004, which was disposed of by directing the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department to communicate the decision taken in the matter of appointment of the petitioner. By letter dated 10.05.2004, the petitioner was intimated that since the petitioner was not working under Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, the application of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner again moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4344 of 2004 and this Court by order dated 02.12.2009 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner giving him priority in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. An advertisement was published on 05.09.2010 and the petitioner again applied for appointment on a class -IV post, however, the application of the petitioner was returned. The claim of the petitioner was considered in the light of direction passed in W.P. (S) No. 4344 of 2004 and it has been rejected by order dated 26.04.2012.

(3.) THE petitioner was held not to be continuously engaged as his engagement was terminated in the year, 1992 and therefore, it was held that he does not fulfill the required qualification for appointment and therefore, he was not given appointment. By order dated 26.04.2012, the claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected on the ground that since the petitioner could obtain only 10 marks as against 20 marks as prescribed by the Adhimanta Committee and hence, the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria and therefore, he could not be granted appointment.