DINESH KUMAR HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by way of this writ application have prayed for a direction commanding upon the respondents to recruit/appoint the petitioners directly on the existing sanctioned and vacant posts in various Government departments and further prayer has been for a direction for implementation of direction/observation made by the Honourable Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115 as also of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5315 of 1998 regarding the appointment of the, petitioners against the various vacant lying posts in the Government of Jharkhand in Class-Ill posts.

(2.) The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioners have done vocational training in the field of Office Management under the Vocational Training Scheme and have passed Intermediate Vocational Examination held in July, 1992 for the various Sessions for eg. 89-91, 90-92 etc. and they have been declared successful by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. The petitioners, after successfully completing the Vocational Training course for the trade of Office Management, got themselves enrolled for the Apprentices (Practical) training at Board of Practical Training and the Board of Proficiency awarded them the Certificates of Proficiency and after getting the Apprenticeship training, become entitled to be recruited by the Government in various Government departments. In the decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Road Transport Corporation, U.P. State, U.P. Parivahan Nigam and another Vs. Berojgar Sangh and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1115, criterias were very clearly laid down for the employment of such trainees who had successfully completed their training. It has been further stated that as per the information, 18 similarly placed persons of poultry production trade were appointed as instructor Poultry Production at different Government High Schools vide Office Order dated 28.06.1993 and 10, out of 18 persons, were appointed in the Jharkhand portion of the undivided Bihar. It has been further stated that the petitioners are eligible for appointments to the post of Instructor and Lab Assistants and as per the report dated 23.03.2001 of the Secretary of the Department of Human Resources Development, a total of 108 posts are lying vacant. The petitioners have filed several representations time and again but no action has been taken by the respondents for their appointment as Assistants/Lab Assistants/Clerks as per the direction of the Honourable Apex Court. There are approximately one lakh posts lying vacant for such appointment and the petitioners again filed representation before the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 106.2009. It has been further averred that similar case regarding appointment against the sanctioned and vacant posts was preferred and this Court vide order dated 30.03.2009, passed in W.P. (S) No. 2927 of 2003, disposed of the writ application with observation that 'if a person has undergone training for Apprenticeship at the cost of State Exchequer, they can certainly be considered for being recruited subject to the post being vacant and sanctioned'. Vide order dated 3.11.1999, a similar case being CWJC No. 7202 of 1998 (Arun Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others) has been disposed of. In spite of all these aforesaid observations passed by the Court time and again, the respondents have taken no heed for redressal of the grievances of the petitioners. The petitioners, left with no alternative, have been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) A supplementary affidavit dated 04.02.2015 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, wherein, it has been submitted that 352 sanctioned posts in the Office of Jharkhand Academic Council are vacant as would appear from the information given by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi vide letter dated 9.7.2012. It has been further stated that due to non-compliance of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Patna High Court, the petitioners are still un-employ ed, even though they are entitled for appointment.