MATILDA TOPPO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) Earlier on 17.5.2013, a detailed order was passed recording the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. As would appear from perusal of the said order, the respondent-department had chosen to hold examination for regular and backlog vacancies on 2.6.2013. The petitioners were aggrieved as in relation to the backlog and regular vacancies two different examination held on 18.12.2011 and 25.4.2012 for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor through the channel of limited examination of departmental candidates have been annulled by the order impugned in the present writ applications being dated 9.2.2013. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court on the said occasion had restrained the respondents from holding a fresh examination scheduled to be held on 2.6.2013. The matter was adjourned, thereafter so that the issue may be finally adjudicated.

(3.) The respondent-State have filed supplementary counter affidavit on 29.8.2013. Mr. A. Allam, learned Sr. S.C. II, appearing on behalf of the State submitted that apart from the findings rendered by the Committee constituted by the Department as contained in Annexure-17 to W.P.S. No. 1316 of 2013 dated 16.5.2012, the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division who was also part of the said Committee had through letter dated 16.7.2012 requested the department to give approval of cancellation of examination held on 18.12.2011 and 25.4.2012. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has referred to the reasons culled out from the aforesaid letter at para 15 and 16 of the instant supplementary counter affidavit, which are being quoted herein below:-