DINESH NAND Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.2563 of 2012 dated 15th May, 2014 whereby the writ petition preferred by these appellants has been dismissed. Therefore, the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants submitted that these appellants (original petitioners) have never applied for District Gumla for the post of Jansevak (Village Level Worker). The home district of the appellants is Gumla. They have filed up their forms for the post of Jansevak for Latehar and Lohardaga. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that looking to the conditions of the Advertisement being clause no.5, to be read with clause no.8 to be read with clause no.9, nowhere it has been stated in the form to be filled up by the candidates, that the applicants have also to point out that they are applying for which district. In fact, the pay orders or the amount for which the bank drafts are given was of district Lohardaga and Latehar. Thus, it cannot be said that these appellants had applied for Jansevak for the district Gumla. In fact, for district Gumla, there is not a single post of General Category candidate, whereas, at Latehar and Lohardaga, there are posts of Jansevak for general category candidates. The appellants have secured more marks than the candidates who have been appointed for the post of Jansevak in general category. Hence, these appellants should be appointed as Jansevak for Latehar and Lohardaga. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.2563 of 2012 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that these appellants, have filled up the form and it is stated therein that they belong to district Gumla. They were given admit card also, for the district Gumla. They had appeared in the examination at District Gumla and, therefore, looking to Clause 5 to be read with clause 8 to be read with clause 9 of the advertisement, which is annexed as Annexure 1 of the Memo of Appeal, it appears that these appellants have applied for only one district at Gumla for the post of Jansevak and not for any other district and, as there is no vacancy for general category candidates for the post of Jansevak at Gumla, these appellants have not been appointed on the same post. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the respondents-State has also submitted that once the candidate is accepting the terms of the advertisement, he cannot now submit that the terms of the advertisement are not binding. Counsel for the respondents-State has relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Anil Kumar Mehta reported in 2014(4) JCR 429. Looking to clause 5 to be read with clause 8 to be read with clause 9 and also looking to the fact that these appellants belong to the district Gumla, they were also given admit card for Gumla, they had appeared in the examination at Gumla and, therefore, they were the candidates who have applied for the district Gumla for the post of Jansevak. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.