MD. ABUL KALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.7 to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioners, pursuant to recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner. Dhanbad vide letter No. 52 dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure 7) in the light of the Government letter No. 1096 dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure 5) and also Government letter No. 49 dated 28.2.2006(Annexure 6) issued by the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand, respondent No. 4.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that an advertisement (Annexure 3) issued by Deputy Commissioner, Dhandbad was published in the daily newspaper on 28.10.2005 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment on Class IV post in different offices in the district of Dhanbad. Pursuant to that, petitioner and others including those persons, who had earlier been impanelled applied for. The petitioners on passing written test etc. were selected and accordingly a panel of the successful candidates was published on 23.4.2006. Subsequently, Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in compliance of the direction issued by the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand under letter No. 1096 dated 27.7.2002 (Annexure 5) and also letter No. 49 dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure 6) made recommendation for appointment of the petitioners and others on the Class IV posts at BIT, Sindri vide letter No. 52 dated 24.1.2007(Annexure 7). When respondent No. 7, Director, BIT, Sindri did not take any action, the Deputy Commissioner again under letter No. 186 dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure 8) made request to take action in the matter of appointment and thereupon respondent No. 7 made appointment to some of them, whose names were down below in the merit list, in other words, junior to the petitioners, which action of the respondent No. 7 is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory.

(3.) STAND of the Director, BIT, Sindri (respondent No. 7) as has been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of him is that Department of Science and Technology being not subordinate to the District Administration, is not supposed to appoint those persons, whose names have been recommended for appointment on Class IV posts rather respondent is bound by the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court whereby the college authority had been directed to make appointment and under this situation, only those candidates, impanelled in the select list tow had been asked to be appointed by the Court have been appointed leaving the claim of others including the petitioner as the college authority is not bound to make appointment on the recommendation made by Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.