KAUSHAL KISHORE SHRIVASTAVA Vs. HEEM BACHAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Jerath, counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Piparwal, counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and counsel for the contesting respondent. 2003 (4) JLJR 793 was relied on in support. In answer, the appellant raised various contentions including the contention that the writ petitioners were not qualified persons and they had no locus standi to challenge the process of selection.

(2.) THE learned single Judge held that in the light of the decision of the Division Bench, it had to be held that there had come into existence no Public Service Commission for the State of Jharkhand and as a consequence, it had to be held that the recommendations sent by the Chairman and the Member are invalid. The learned Judge thus having found that the whole action was ultra vires allowed the writ petition and directed the subsequently properly constituted Commission, to immediately start the process of selection to the post of Director, Higher Education. The appellant who was apparently continuing after the direction on the basis of an interim arrangement has filed this appeal, challenging the decision of the learned single Judge.

(3.) IN this context, it appears to us that we would not be justified in applying the de facto doctrine to sustain the action of the Public Service Commission.After all, there were only 47 applicants and the post of Director, Higher Education who is to be in charge of higher education in the whole of the State. There will be no undue delay in having a fresh selection. We are, -therefore; satisfied that this is not a fit case for applying the de facto doctrine to sustain what is apparently an illegal fact on the part of the so called Public Commission. In view of this, we do not think it necessary to go into the controversy whether the elimination of 42 candidates was done by the Chairman or by the Secretary acting on his own or by the Public Service Commission as it existed on that day consisting of one Chairman and one Member. Since we satisfied that this is not a tit case for applying the de facto doctrine; we are satisfied that no interference is called for. Once it is found that the whole process is bad, the question whether the writ petitioners were entitled to be considered or appointed to the post, loses its significance. We are therefore satisfied that the decision of the learned single Judge deserves to be confirmed.