MRITYUNJAY MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondent no.5 to make regular appointment on the vacant Class-IV posts from the final district panel prepared and published on 26.04.2007, vide Annexure-9 and the roster approved by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (respondent no.4). Further, prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent no.5 for appointment by relaxing the age. The petitioner has also prayed for direction upon the respondents to treat the case of the petitioner in terms of order dated 23.12.2008 passed in W.P.(S) no.911 of 2008 since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner has been working on daily wage for the last several years. A final district panel of 186 persons was published on 26.04.2007 after being approved by the District Selection Committee wherein the name of the petitioner found place at Serial no.40. From the aforesaid panel, respondent no.7 and 8 have been appointed on Class-IV post. In spite of the vacancies, the respondent no.5 did not take steps for filling up the vacancies from the said panel. In the meantime, the petitioner has crossed his maximum age limit fixed for the Government servant. Similarly situated persons approached this Court in W.P (S) no.911 of 2008, W.P(S) no.1132 of 2008, W.P (S) no.1731 of 2008 and W.P.(S) no.2271 of 2008 which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.12008 with liberty to the petitioners to file their individual representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara stating in details about their claim and grievances along with the supporting documents. Since the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid order, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that basing on the work experiences as a daily wager, the panel which was published should have been given effect for regular appointment on Class-IV post but the respondents for the reason best known to them, have failed to exercise their bounden duties in regular appointment on Class-IV post whereby the legitimate expectations of the petitioner for being absorbed in Class-IV has been belied.