DIWAKAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned AAG. For the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (State), Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Manoj Tandon as well as Mr. Ind raj it Sinha, learned counsel for the private respondents.

(2.) Since the issue in both the applications are common, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) In WP(S) No. 1971 of 2014, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appointment of respondent Nos. 4 to 33 on the post of Drug Inspector in the State of Jharkhand pursuant to advertisement No. 20 of 2010 as the entire appointments have been made illegally and arbitrarily. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the entire advertisement No. 20 of 2011 issued for the appointment on the post of Drug Inspector in the State of Jharkhand and the corrigendum, if any issued in this regard. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to immediately and forthwith restrain the private respondent Nos. 4 to 33 from joining on the post of Drug Inspector and it has also been prayed that the entire appointment of the 30 private respondents be declared to be illegal and arbitrary and to conduct a fresh examination in terms of the original advertisement No. 20 of 2011.