CHANDO RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 25.02016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, whereby, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services without considering the order dated 04.12015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 4508 of 2010. Petitioners have further prayed that after quashment of the impugned order, their cases may be considered for regularization after exempting the age bar in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have been given the benefits of exemption from age bar. It has also been prayed by the petitioners that respondent No. 2 be directed to enquire the matter of illegal appointment/ regularization of private respondent Nos. 3 to 15 and after enquiry, if it is found that they have been appointment illegally, in view of the fact that they have got less marks than the petitioners and have not appeared in the cycle test, their appointments/ regularization procedure may be cancelled.

(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioners who were working as daily wagers have earlier preferred W.P.(S). No. 4508 of 2010 for a direction upon the respondents to consider their cases for regularization of their services in 4th grade post in the district of Hazaribagh, in view of the fact that they belongs to SC/OBC category and their names were paneled for the year 2005 but their cases were not considered though the similarly situated persons, who were below in the rank of the petitioners were considered for regularization. It has also been pleaded that some of the persons were also appointed/ regularized by the respondents by giving the benefits of age relaxation following the Rule-54 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code, whereas, the cases of the petitioners were not considered. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Hon'ble Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the entire documents enclosed with the pleadings of the parties, disposed of the writ petition on 04.12.2015, holding inter alia therein that,