The main legal point established in the judgment is that an approved panel for appointment remains valid for one year, with a possible extension of six months, but not exceeding one year.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

These appeals have been filed against the order dated 16th May 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2884 of 2018 & W.P.(S) No. 3412 of 2018 whereby the learned writ Court has been pleased to dismiss the writ petitions preferred by the appellants on the ground that the panel prepared for appointment was valid only for one year and the same was prepared as back as in the year 2006 whereas the appellants were seeking appointment based on the said panel after 12 years from the date of preparation of such panel.

2. L.P.A. No. 485 of 2023 arises out of W.P.(S) No. 3412 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 466 of 2023 arises out of W.P.(S) No. 2884 of 2018.

3. The writ petitions were filed for the following reliefs:-

“That by way of this writ application the petitioners pray for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/Rule(s)/order (s)/direction (s), or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the reasoned and speaking order dated 19.07.2017 (Annexure – 9), passed by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Road Construction Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby & where under the claim of the petitioners were not accepted on the ground that validity of the panel has already been lapsed and therefore, the petitioners cannot be given any relief, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any justification:

And

For further directing the respondents for complying with the earlier orders of this Hon’ble Court, for filling up the vacant posts of Class–III & IV Category, in Road Construction Department and also for appointing the petitioners in the said department, as in spite of the repeated orders of this Hon’ble Court the vacant posts are not being filled up:

And

For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioners are legally entitled to, in the facts & circumstances of this case, for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners.”

4. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the representations of the appellants filed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.1793 of 2007 and other analogous cases were not considered properly by the concerned authority while rejecting their claim and this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned writ Court while dismissing the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to paragraph no.8 of the order impugned in the writ petition to submit that 23 persons who were petitioners in C.W.J.C No. 2338 of 1998 (R) were considered for appointment and the appellants were not considered.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer made by the appellants and has submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference in as much as admittedly the panel was prepared long back in the year 2006 and the life of the panel is normally considered to be valid for one year only.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, it is apparent that the case of the appellants before the learned writ Court was that they were working on the sanctioned and vacant post of Mechanical Assistant Technical Worker in the Road Construction Department from 1990 and continued to work for about 6 to 7 years. On 24th February 1995 the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Road Construction Department, Ranchi issued notice to all the technical employees to submit their applications for their appointment within a period of one month. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27th June 1998 written to the Engineer-in-chief-cum-Additional-Commissioner-cum-Additional-Secretary, Road Construction Department, a request was made by the Superintending Engineer for the allocation of funds for newly appointed field staff and for the creation of 1233 posts in addition to the appointments made earlier. However, vide general order dated 29th August 1998 all the appointments were cancelled.

7. Under such circumstances,