Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Arvind Kumar Singh, Son of Late Brij Nandan Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W. P. (S) No. 5875 of 2011
Decided on : 09-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Power of High court - Writ petition has been filed for reliefs - Issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ of or in nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon concerned respondents to rectify final gradation list of officers and Assistants of Jharkhand Secretariat Service published vide letter under signature of Deputy Secretary of Government - Whether it is open to Commission to disregard requisition and repeated requests made by State Government to recommend names for appointment - Whether Commission can be said to have fully complied with direction of Supreme Court in making recommendation of 172 names (against a requisition for 209) by its letter and therefore it is no longer obliged to make any further recommendation for filling up vacancies which were admittedly in existence – Held, Court is of considered view that aforesaid difference of facts which is sought to be highlighted by present petitioner has no bearing on merits of case in order to distinguish case of petitioner from that of W.P.(S) - Petitioner is squarely covered by judgment passed in W.P. (S) for following reasons - There was another case decided by Hon’ble Patna High Court arising out of recruitment vide advertisement and referred to by learned counsel for Respondents which gives reason as to why name of petitioner was sent back in spite of recommendation of BPSC and under what circumstances names were again recommended in year 1998 pursuant to which petitioner of W.P.(S) was appointed in year 1998 and present petitioner was appointed in year 1999 – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to follow its own Rule namely “SACHIVALAY AUR SANLAGNA KARYALAYON KE SAHAYKON KA SANYUKTA SAMWARG NIYAMAWALI- 1992” (Rule 1992 of Secretariat Assistant Joint Cadre) in which clause 14 provides that inter-se seniority of Assistants is to be determined in accordance with their position in the merit list of successful candidates of the competitive examination for recruitment of Secretariat Assistant which has been violated in respect of the petitioner so far
iii. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the petitioner is found entitled and also for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014, which has been decided on 16.06.2022. It has also been submitted that so far no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment.
Arguments of the petitioner
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is distinguishable on facts as compared to the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014.
5. The learned counsel submits that so far as history of appointment of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant in the Secretariat against the advertisement vide notice No. 11/1985. She submits that the Bihar Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as the ‘BPSC’) vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) submitted a list of 177 persons with recommendation of 170 suitable candidates for their appointment to the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, in which the name of the petitioner figured at serial No. 128, but without assigning any reason, the concerned department returned the said letter of recommendation in respect of the petitioner along with three others even when the vacancies were available. She further submits that the Personnel and Administrative Reform Department, Government of Bihar, Patna resubmitted requisition to BPSC asking for recommendation for appointment of the petitioner along with others vide letter No. 9 dated 07.01.1998 (Annexure-2) and in response to such requisition, the BPSC sent recommendation for appointment of the petitioner along with others to the concerned department vide letter No. 328 dated 26.09.1998 (Annexure-3) and consequently, the petitioner was ultimately appointed vide letter No. 85 dated 10.02.1999.
6. The specific case of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was already recommended by the BPSC as back as in the year 1995 and for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the same was returned back and the name was again recommended in the year 1998 and ultimately, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner should be placed in seniority
The court established that seniority must be fixed retrospectively, and actions that undermine an employee's rightful promotion based on ignored ACRs are impermissible and require rectification.
Inter-se seniority in public service is determined by the statutory merit order of the recruitment examination, not the date of joining. Moreover, challenges to long-settled seniority lists are barre....
Seniority in public service must be determined by the date of first appointment, not by roster points, as per statutory rules.
The court affirmed that seniority of candidates appointed is protected under established merit lists, and any revised promotions must not disturb previously confirmed appointments unless legally just....
Seniority cannot be granted to employees not borne in the cadre; it must reflect the actual date of joining. A fresh seniority list should be prepared following Supreme Court rulings.
Point of Law : Cognizance of the State resorting to irregular recruitment and issued a direction to the effect that seniority of direct recruits, both outsiders and insiders should be determined acco....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
