JUDGMENT :

Common questions of law are involved in all these writ petitions and as such these cases have been tagged together and common orders are being passed by way of an interim relief.

2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the Advertisement No. 01/2019, floated by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission disqualifying them from appearing in the examination as they do not fulfill requisite qualification as per terms of the advertisement though admittedly they have been discharging their duties as ANM for last several years without any complaint in the respective districts on contractual basis after being selected following due procedure of selection.

3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel and Mr. A. Allam, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, Mr. Raunak Sahay, Mr. Vipul Poddar and other counsel appears on behalf of writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions raising common question of law. Learned Sr. Counsels, while addressing this Court, have come out with legal issues for proper consideration of the instant case:

i. Whether administrative orders can overrule the statutory provisions?

ii. Whether additional qualifications can be fixed or inserted in the advertisement which is contrary to their own Rules?

iii. Whether the entire advertised posts can be reserved for the local residents only?

iv. Whether contrary to their own Notification, the State is empowered to add or modify the minimum requisite qualification for appointment of ANM?

v. While floating Advertisement No. 01/2019, whether respondents have taken into consideration past services of the petitioners who were appointed as per public advertisement following the Rules and are still working as such?

vi. Whether reserving the entire seats for local residents only amounts to 100% reservation and is contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 16 of the Constitution of India?

vii. Whether additional qualification can be fixed contrary to the Rules?

viii. Whether respondents can be allowed to fix such criteria which may oust the ANM already working for last several years?

4. The main limb of arguments advanced by learned Sr. Counsels assisted by other counsels is “As to whether reserving the entire seats for local residents amount to 100% reservation and is contrary to the Constitutional mandates accepted by the Central Government as well as the State Government and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India?”

5. Learned Sr. Counsels argue that if the posts are filled-up and candidature of the petitioners are not accepted, they will be debarred forever and their livelihood would be snatched as most of them have crossed the age bar for any other employment. Learned Sr. Counsels further argue that even previous contractual appointments of the petitioners which were made long back after following due procedures of law by way of public advertisement, have not been considered. It is totally against the principles of natural justice to debar the ANM who have been discharging their duties continuously for last 7 to 10 years to the utmost satisfaction without any complaint.

6. Learned Sr. Counsels have placed heavy reliance on the Judgments in the cases of :

(i) Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic and Another Vs. Anu Lamba and others reported in (2006) 7 SCC 161;

(ii) Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 562.

(iii) Prashant Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs The State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2003 (1) JCR 3 Jhr.

7. Learned Sr. Counsels further argue that in a catena of decisions, it has clearly been defined as to who is a local resident? Relying on the Full Bench Judgment of this Hon’ble Court, it has been argued that in the case of Prashant Vidyarthi & Ors. (Supra), discrimination shown by the Government has been deprecated and stayed.

8. It has further been argued that right has accrued to the petitioners who were v