Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1486
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Sanjay Kumar and others - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand and others - Respondents
W.P.(S) Nos. 6709, 7047 of 2017, 789, 1257, 1278, 1342, 1638, 1757, 544, 1007 1915, 1926, 1893 of 2018
Decided On : 12-09-2018
For the Petitioner: M/s. Rajiv Ranjan, Manoj Tandon, Jai Shankar Tripathi, Shray Mishra, Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Piyush Chitresh, Tejo Mistri.
For Respondent: M/s. H.K. Mehta, K.M. Verma, L.C.N. Shahdeo, Ms. Richa Sanchita, Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Vishal Kumar Rai, Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, Mr, Kaustav Panda, Vineet Prakash, Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Ms. Shrestha Mehta, AC to Mr. Sumir Prasad.
Headnote:
Service Laws – Counselling – Stoppage of – Press release in respect of Advertisement was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau regarding holding of the examination which was earlier postponed, asking all eligible candidates to give their consent for appearing in the examination. Petitioners appeared in the written examination conducted for the Class-IV post of Anusevak held – After the examination, there was a press release vide memo, asking all the successful candidates to come for counselling on various dates and the counselling was to start from 12.11.2017. – Counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that there is no provision for holding interviews/counselling for the class-IV posts. Pursuant to the Office Memorandum, it has already been decided by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training not to hold interviews/counselling for all junior level posts and the same has already came into force with effect from 01.01.2016. – Learned counsels further submit that even in other States like the State of Himachal Pradesh, decision has already been taken to discontinue the process of holding interviews in respect of making direct recruitment to Class-III and IV posts. – Learned counsels submit that petitioners have already cleared their written examination and are liable to be appointed on the basis of the marks obtained by them. – Only in order to harass the petitioners and others who have obtained appropriate marks for selection, the impugned Memo has been issued by the respondents in order to accommodate the persons of their choice and as such, the decision of the respondents to conduct counselling is bad in eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. – Held, Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination. – No additional marks can be allotted in counselling. Counselling is permitted in accordance with law as per terms and conditions of the advertisement for verification of certificates. – If the candidates who have appeared in the written examination and have been declared successful and are eligible for appointments after verification of certificates and testimonials, it is open for the respondents to prepare a list for appointment in accordance with law. – Appointment has to be carried out in accordance with the advertisement notice. – Once the respondents have floated the advertisement and process of appointment has started, it cannot change the rules of the game once the game has started. – In the instant case examination is already over and merit list has been prepared. – Once the process is over, how can the respondents change the rules for such appointment. – There cannot be a doubt that it is the absolute discretion of the employer to make or not to make appointments, even after an advertisement has been issued for inviting applications for appointment but the respondents cannot be allowed to change rule for such appointment. – Writ Petitions Allowed
Since all these writ petitions raise a common question of law, the same are being heard and disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. With a common grievance, petitioners have approached this Court mainly with a prayer to immediately and forthwith stop counselling of the candidates who have been called and appeared for Class-IV posts of Anusevak and further prayed for quashing the press release issued vide Memo No. 842, dated 09.11.2017.
3. The fact of the case giving rise to the instant writ petitions is that a press release in respect of Advertisement No. 01/2010, dated 26.07.2010 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on 22.07.2017 and 31.08.2017 regarding holding of the examination which was earlier postponed, asking all eligible candidates to give their consent for appearing in the examination. Petitioners appeared in the written examination conducted for the Class-IV post of Anusevak held on 05.11.2017. After the examination, there was a press release vide memo no. 842, dated 09.11.2017, asking all the successful candidates to come for counselling on various dates and the counselling was to start from 12.11.2017.
4. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that there is no provision for holding interviews/counselling for the class-IV posts. Pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015, it has already been decided by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training not to hold interviews/counselling for all junior level posts and the same has already came into force with effect from 01.01.2016. Learned counsels further submit that even in other States like the State of Himachal Pradesh, decision has already been taken to discontinue the process of holding interviews in respect of making direct recruitment to Class-III and IV posts. Learned counsels submit that petitioners have already cleared their written examination and are liable to be appointed on the basis of the marks obtained by them. Only in order to harass the petitioners and others who have obtained appropriate marks for selection, the impugned Memo No. 842, dated 09.11.2017 has been issued by the respondents in order to accommodate the persons of their choice and as such, the decision of the respondents to conduct counselling is bad in eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondents-State submits that the instant cases have a chequered history. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2010 for appointment to the Class-IV posts in Palamau Collectorate, the examinations were held on 05.11.2017. However, after the complaints regarding irregularities committed in the examination, it was decided to hold counseling for final selection amongst the candidates who had obtained higher marks. Upon enquiry, many candidates accepted their indulgence in leak of question papers and other irregularities and thereafter, FIR was lodged against the examination conducting agency, coaching institutions and candidates indulged in committing irregularities. The decision to hold counselling has been done just to verify the irregularities and complaints. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents would also help in verification of institution of criminal cases, if any, against any candidates as the persons having criminal background/history cannot be appointed in a government service.
6. Mr. K.M. Verma, learned GP-I representing respondents – State very fairly submits that admittedly some irregularities were there and on a complaint regarding irregularities committed in the examination it was decided to hold Counselling for final selection amongst the candidates who had obtained higher marks. It has further been submitted by learned GP-I that there is a provision for Counselling and in view of that provision, Counselling was held to verify the documents/testimonials of the candidates. The selection
