SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Jhk) 89

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, JJ.
Kamal Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 4861 of 2019 With W.P.(S) No. 4741 of 2019 With W.P.(S) No. 4889 of 2019
Decided On : 27-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate
For the Respondent: State :Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Sr. S.C.-I, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Sr. S.C.-II, Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, G.P.-II, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate, Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate, Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate

Any appointment made contrary to the statutory provision would be nullity in the eye of law.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicle Inspector - Eligibility Criteria - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 213(4); Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2010 - The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking to quash the order denying the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector and the notification prescribing the experience certificate requirement. The court held that the experience condition was based on the statutory provision and the candidates were required to furnish correct declaration for consideration of their candidature. Any appointment made contrary to the statutory provision would be nullity in the eye of law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought consideration of their candidature for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector but their candidature was rejected due to lack of eligibility pertaining to experience as provided under the advertisement. They approached the court for quashing the decision of the respondent authority and the eligibility criteria pertaining to experience.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the petitioners' candidature was justified as they had furnished incorrect declaration about their practical experience, which was a requirement based on the statutory provision. The court held that any appointment made contrary to the statutory provision would be nullity in the eye of law.

Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the petitioners' candidature for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector and the validity of the experience condition based on the statutory provision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioners' candidature was justified as they had furnished incorrect declaration about their practical experience, which was a requirement based on the statutory provision. Any appointment made contrary to the statutory provision would be nullity in the eye of law.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions as the petitioners failed to make out any case for passing any positive direction.

JUDGMENT :

At the outset it is recorded herein that in pursuance to the order dated 16.01.2020, the records pertaining to the Diploma Level Joint Competitive Examination, 2016 (DSCCE- 2016), have been produced by one Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, presently working as Under Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, let the same be taken on record.

2. Personal appearance of Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Under Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is dispensed with.

3. All these three writ petitions since having similar cause of action, therefore, have been directed to be heard together and accordingly are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

4. These writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order as contained in Memo No. 136 dated 14.12.2018 to the extent that the candidature of writ petitioners for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector was denied by the respondent authority on the ground that the writ petitioners had failed to acquire the training from the recognized establishment being registered under the Factories Act as also for seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in view of the fact that the petitioners have been declared successful in examination conducted pursuant to the advertisement No. 18/2016 by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission as also for quashing of the part of the notification No. 365 dated 10.06.2013 [as contained under Annexure-14] in so far as it prescribes that the experience certificate so issued should be from an enterprise which is registered under the Factories Act since the said provision contained in the notification is dehors the Rule contained in Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act as also the rule prescribed for appointment vide notification being S.O. No. 443(E) dated 12.06.1989 issued by the Central Government.

5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading in the writ petitions read hereunder as :-

That the petitioners, claiming themselves to be eligible for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (Mines Inspector) in pursuance of advertisement No. 18/2016 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, made their applications. It is the case of the petitioners that they were allowed to participate in the selection process in which they were found to be successful but at the time of scrutiny of their documents, their candidature was rejected on the ground that they were lacking eligibility pertaining to experience as provided under Condition No. 5.1 of the advertisement. The writ petitioners have approached to this Court making prayer for consideration of their candidature by cancelling the decision of the respondent authority with a further direction to quash the eligibility criteria pertaining to experience as under Condition No. 5.1 of the advertisement as also the Rule enacted by the respondent State of Jharkhand vide Notification No. 365 dated 10.06.2013 as contained under Annexure-14 in W.P.(S) No.4861 of 2019 which according to the writ petitioners, is in the teeth of provision as contained under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicle Act as also the Notification dated 12.06.1989.

6. It requires to be referred herein, before considering the legality and propriety of the decision in rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioners to first deal with the prayer made to the effect for quashing of the experience condition as provided under Clause 4(b) of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2010 (in short Rules of 2010).

7. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties at Bar that the vires of Clause 4(b) of the Rules of 2010 fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7648 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2015 whereby and whereund

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top