ANANT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of "Force Order no. 250 of 2017" (Annexure-3), whereby, the seniority list has been published for the post of Company Commander, Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, wherein, the marks obtained during the training has been added for determination of seniority due to which private respondents (Appointees of 2014 ) who are juniors to the petitioners (Appointees of 2012) have considered seniors to the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for consideration of objection regarding the seniority list pursuant to Memo No. 714, dtd. 6/4/2017 (Annexure-1) and issue afresh seniority list.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Company Commander on 30/11/2012 after being declared successful pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2008. At the time of the advertisement and during the appointment process, admittedly there was no service rule available with respect to determining the seniority/promotion of the Company Commander (Home Guards). Further, in the terms of the advertisement as well as appointment letter, nowhere, it is mentioned that the marks of the training will be added while preparing the seniority list. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 714, dtd. 6/4/2017 issued under the signature of Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guard, whereby, a provisional seniority list was prepared inviting objections (Annexure-1), thereafter, the petitioners have filed objections on 18/4/2017 (Annexure-2), opposing the stand of the respondents that the marks of the training cannot be added for determination of the seniority list. Thereafter, without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, the seniority list was prepared by the respondent State vide Force Order No 250/2017 issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General, Home Guards, by determining the seniority on the basis of marks obtained during the training not as per the merit of recruitment process and length of service. The petitioner no. 1 being ranked 1 in the merit list, appointed in the year 2012 has been made junior to private respondent who have been appointed in the year 2014 also they are less meritorious in the merit list.