ANUP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 7 -Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, after collecting the positions of vacancies, from the different departments of the Government including Rural Engineering Organization, Hazaribagh, got an advertisement bearing No. 2 of 2002 issued, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for being appointed in Class -IV posts. Pursuant to that, these petitioners applied for their appointments in Class -IV posts in the district of Hazaribagh. Thereupon, Admit Cards were issued to them and they appeared on the test, in which they were declared successful and, accordingly, a panel (Annexure -1) was prepared by the respondent No. 7 - Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, made recommendation to the respondent No.5 -Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Hazaribagh, for the appointment of the petitioners on Class -IV posts, but the respondent No. 5 did not appoint these petitioners and, therefore, these petitioners have filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent No. 5 to appoint them, on Class -IV posts, as the persons junior to these petitioners, appearing in the panel, have already been appointed in different departments of the Government.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that before the advertisement was issued, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, had collected the positions of vacancies from the different departments of the Government, including Rural Engineering Organization, Hazaribagh, which would be evident from Annexure -2. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, proceeded with the process of the selection of the candidates for their appointments on Class -IV posts, in different Departments of the Government including Rural Engineering Organization, Hazaribagh. After these petitioners came out successful, their names were recommended, by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh for being appointed in the Rural Engineering Organization, Hazaribagh, but the petitioners were not appointed on the plea that it is the respondent No.5 -Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Hazaribagh, who is the appointing authority, but that plea is not tenable in view of the fact that the department i.e. Rural Engineering Organization, Hazaribagh had itself sent position of the vacancies, before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, before the process of the selection, was undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and that in similar situation, directions have been issued by this Court, for making appointments in different Departments of the Government of the persons, who were selected in the process of the said selection.