LAWS(JHAR)-2018-8-117

RANJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On August 31, 2018
RANJIT KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Sr.S.C.I appearing for the Respondent-State.

(2.) In this writ application, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order as contained in Memo dated 002013, issued under the signature of the District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Palamau and further for a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to give effect to the Office Order as contained in Memo dated 01.02013 and further for a direction upon the respondents to reserve two posts of the Junior Engineer, awaiting the decision of the present writ petition.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application are that in pursuance to the advertisement published in the newspaper on 27.04.2012, the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer on contractual basis. After fulfilling all the eligibility criteria, the petitioners were allowed to appear before the Interview Board. As per the minutes of the meeting dated 30.01.2013, the appointment of the petitioners were made by the District Level Committee. However, to the utter consternation of the petitioners, the District Education officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Palamu vide Office Order as contained in memo dated 02.02.2013, cancelled the appointment letter dated 01.02.2013 issued to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria relating to age as per the second Notification as contained in letter dated 17.10.2011. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioners have submitted their representations dated 12.02.2013 and 10.04.2013 and since the representations of the petitioner have fallen on the deaf ears of the respondents, the petitioners, left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, have been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.