DAYANAND PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to an advertisement which was issued on 21.4.2005, the petitioner appeared and he was declared successful in the result which was published in the month of March, 2007. However, the entire selection process has been cancelled by the respondents. A similar writ petition was filed by another successful candidate being W.P.(S) No. 2665 of 2008 which however, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that though the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2665 of 2008 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, this Court observed that the respondents may consider the desirability of granting necessary age relaxation to the petitioners who were declared successful in the examination which was held pursuant to advertisement dated 21.4.2005. The order passed by the Writ court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. no. 90 of 2009 by order dated 05.05.2011.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire selection process has been cancelled by the respondents for the reasons which can be attributed to the respondents themselves and the petitioner was not at fault and therefore, the petitioner may be granted age relaxation for appearing in the examination, if a fresh advertisement is issued by the respondents.

(3.) I find that the statements made in the writ petition have not been disputed or controverted by the respondents. It has only been stated that in the light of Lok Sewa Cadre Rules, 2010, the selection on the part of Clerk-Typist etc. would be done through the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents are extracted below: