SIKANDER PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE facts in brief are set out as under: In the year 1986 respondent Nos. 7 & 8 along with others preferred a writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 1573 of 1986 (R) praying for regularization of their services and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.11.1986 with a direction to file representation before the Chief Conservator of Forests who was directed to dispose of the same. Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 accordingly filed a representation before the concerned respondent authorities and the Chief Conservator of Forests passed an order for their appointment. The aforesaid order of appointment was challenged by similarly situated persons vide C.W.J.C. No. 861 of 1989 (R) and this Hon'ble Court vide a detail speaking order directed the State Government to fill up the vacant post in accordance with the policy decision and in compliance with the requirements of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It was specifically directed as under: It is, however, made clear that the said respondents shall be entitled to apply for their appointment against the said posts and in that event their cases may be considered along with all other eligible candidates. Pursuant thereto an Advertisement No. 5 -7/91 was Issued for the post of Assistants and several eligible candidates applied against it along with the petitioners herein and Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 and after going through the selection process a panel of successful candidates was prepared by the respondent authorities which gave appointment to forty -four persons committing various irregularities and favoritism and the said appointment was again challenged before this Hon'ble Court in a series of writ applications. This Court vide its judgment dated 5.4.1994 cancelled all the appointments and directed the concerned respondents to reinitiate the process of appointments. Pursuant thereto a fresh panel was prepared wherein the names of the petitioners appear at serial Nos. 45, 50 and 53 respectively, whereas, the names of private respondent Nos. 7 & 8 appear at serial Nos. 54 and 58 respectively.

(3.) THE main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the entire action of the respondent authority is on the face of it arbitrary, illegal and malafide. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that the panel of 1994 subsequently prepared in compliance to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court has attained finality and they were placed at a higher rank / serial in the panel and ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioners, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 who are lower in rank and place in the panel have been illegally appointed and thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.