RAVI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was called for counselling in the same transaction was left out, while other similarly situated short- listed candidates were appointed. Accordingly, prayer in the writ petition is for a direction for appointment of the petitioner in his category, on the post for which he was found suitable.

(2.) Briefly stated, an advertisement was issued on 08.09.2009 for appointment on non-gazetted post in Group-C through Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination. Total number of advertised vacancies under different trades was 504. The petitioner applied for the post of I.T.I. Instructor in Mechanical General Electronics Section. He was declared successful in the written examination and thereafter called for counselling in which he participated and completed all the formalities. However, he was not appointed. In the meanwhile, several appointments were made from the list of successful candidates who had qualified in the written test and were called for counselling. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that on account of uncertainty how to run the I.T.I.s; initially in the year 2011 it was proposed to run I.T.I.s on P.P.P. mode, however, in 2012 it was decided to run them through Department of Labour, Employment and Training, no concrete decision for appointment pursuant to Advertisement No.50 of 2009 dated 08.09.2009 was taken. Finally, when an opinion from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasha was received, appointment from the panel prepared pursuant to Advertisement No.50/2009 was stopped.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners, referring to letter for appointment dated 21.5.2014 submits that several similarly situated persons were appointed, however, the claim of the petitioner ,who was found suitable, has been illegally withheld. Learned Counsel for the respondents has tried to contend that when an opinion from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand was received, in the light of letter dated 06.12.1995 after 14.09.2015, no appointment from the select list prepared pursuant to Advertisement dated 08.09.2009 has been made. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was found suitable and he was called for counselling. The respondents continued to appoint other similarly situated candidates as late as on 21.05.2014 and, in fact, the petitioner has pleaded that appointments have been made in the year 2015 also. In the counter- affidavit suitability of the petitioner has not been challenged. The petitioner by producing appointment letters issued in the year 2011- 2014 have pleaded that the respondent-Department withheld petitioner's appointment illegally. The plea that after opinion from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasha was received on 14.09.2015, a decision was taken not to appoint any candidate from the panel, has been taken for the first time in the present proceeding. The respondent-Department while continued to make appointments whenever they wanted never made it public that panel prepared pursuant to Advertisement No.50/2009 no longer survives. Now, in the above facts, the plea taken by the respondent- Department that after one year the panel had lapsed appears to be a feeble attempt on its part to resist the claim for appointment raised by the petitioner. In my opinion, at this stage the aforesaid plea is not available to the respondent-Department.