MUMTAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against the sanctioned and vacant posts of 'Amin' in the district of Dhanbad. Further prayer has been made for the benefit of the continuity of service and pay them the equal salary and other allowances, which is paid to the regular employees of the same cadre. Further prayer has been made for quashing the advertisement No. 03/2017 and alternatively direct the respondents to grant the age relaxation.

(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 have moved earlier before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No.966 of 2015, whereas the petitioner No.7 in W.P.(S) No. 871 of 2016, which were disposed of vide order dated 25.01.2016 and 14.06.2016 respectively. It is case of the petitioners that, on being fully eligible for appointment to the post of 'Amin', the petitioners have been working continuously since April, 2008 against the sanctioned and vacant post of 'Amin' and as such, their cases should be considered for regularization. They have been engaged initially for one year but thereafter, it was further extended and as such, they are continuing on the said post till date. This Court after hearing learned counsels for the parties in W.P.(S) No. 966 of 2015 observed that in such circumstances, given the stand of the respondent also, it would only be proper that, if admittedly vacancies are existing in different districts for the post of Amin, such recruitment exercise be undertaken on the part of the respondent-department through Commission within a reasonable time. The process be at least initiated within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say in such recruitment exercise, petitioners if fulfill the eligibility criteria and are entitled to avail relaxation in age etc. in terms of Rules; would have opportunity to stake their claim. Accordingly the writ petition was disposed of.

(3.) In compliance thereof, the respondent floated an advertisement No.03/2017 for regular appointment of the 'Amins' in the district of Dhanbad and other districts in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners working in the district of Dhanbad duly appeared in the said recruitment process but as they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, they were not selected. The petitioners after being declared unsuccessful on the ground of not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, have approached this Court, by filing the present writ petition, challenging the advertisement. Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of the petitioners though they were working on the post of 'Amin' since April, 2008. Learned counsel further argues that in view of earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Court, the case of the petitioners ought to have been considered but the respondents with mala fide intention denied the opportunity to appear in the selection process and their case have been rejected on the ground of not fulfilling the eligibility criteria.