MANOHAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) The present petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 958 of 2003 along with 3 others making a claim for regularization on the ground that he was also working under the Work Charge Establishment continuously without any break and also for payment of wages from March, 2002. The said writ petition was however dismissed on the plea raised by the Respondents that the said petitioners have been removed from Work Charge Establishment from March, 2002 and thereafter they are not working. Further it was observed that their engagement was no more required. Petitioner along with 3 others went in appeal being L.P.A. No. 361 of 2007 against the impugned judgment dated 7.8.2007 passed in the said writ petition by the learned Single Judge. By judgment dated 9.9.2009 the said L.P.A. was allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Secretary, Road Construction Department to consider the case of the Appellants for their regularization/absorption and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order. The observations of the learned Division Bench vide judgment dated 9.9.2009 as contained at para 9 to 12 are quoted herein below:-

(3.) Petitioner's claim thereafter was however rejected by a reasoned order no. 193 dated 25.5.2010, Annexure-9 passed by the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand on the ground that the educational qualification for appointment to the post of a driver was 8th pass while one of the petitioner in the said case namely Bhola Singh was 7th pass and the present petitioner did not show any educational qualification. The other two petitioners in the said case namely Birendra Kumar Singh and Shankar Dayal Tiwary were considered for appointment on the post of Choukidar and Peon on having found that they are having minimum educational qualification. After coming to know that his claim has been rejected, the present petitioner challenged the said reasoned order in W.P.S. No. 2993 of 2012. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 27.8.2012(Annexure-10) directed the concerned authorities of the Respondent-State to pass a fresh order after verifying the genuineness of the transfer certificate of the petitioner where it was revealed that he studied till Class 9 and therefore it was observed that he has passed Class 8. The said judgment is itself quoted herein below:-