Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Sudhakar Thakur – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2608 of 2019
Decided On : 05-02-2024
(A) Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act - Recruitment process - Discharge from service - Petitioners discharged from constable service due to incorrect category consideration - Court held that illegal appointments cannot be perpetuated, and mere continuation in service does not confer rights - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 20)
(B) Employment Law - Eligibility criteria - Mistake in appointment process - Court emphasized that appointments made in violation of recruitment rules are void ab initio and cannot be regularized. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged their discharge from constable service, arguing that they were wrongfully categorized during recruitment, leading to their dismissal despite successful completion of training and service.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed under an incorrect category and that his appointment was void from the beginning, thus not entitled to reinstatement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner no. 1 could be reinstated despite being appointed under an incorrect category and the legality of his discharge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that illegal appointments cannot be allowed to continue, and sympathy cannot override legal principles in public employment matters.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Rajesh Shankar, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders as contained in memo no. 9048 and memo no. 9092, both dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure-10 series to the writ petition) issued with respect to the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 respectively by the respondent no. 5 – the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, whereby they have been discharged from service of the post of constable. Further prayer has been made for quashing the orders as contained in memo no. 536 and memo no. 533, both dated 01.03.2019 (Anneuxre-11 series to the writ petition) issued both with respect to the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 respectively by the Deputy Inspector General, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi, whereby the memorial appeals filed by them have been dismissed. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to reinstate them in service.
2. Reference may be made to order dated 16.01.2024 which reads as under:
22. That it is stated that it was found that age of petitioner no. 2 was less than 28 years as on cut off date i.e. 01.08.2015 and she has to be considered under unreserved (Female) category but petitioner no. 2 was inadvertently considered under S.T. (Female) category only. She has also secured more marks than the last successful candidate under unreserved (Female) category and she is also within the maximum age limit of unreserved (female) category and as such this mistake was rectified and name of petitioner no. 2 was recommended by the commission under unreserved (female) category vide Letter No. 6504 dated 17.07.2020.
2. Considering the said statement made in the counter affidavit dated 08.04.2021, the writ petition so far as the same relates to the petitioner no. 2 has become infructuous.
3. The writ petition now only confines to the petitioner no. 1.”
3. Thus, the present writ petition is now confined to quashing of the order as contained in memo no. 9048 dated 12.11.2018 issued by the respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner no. 1 has been discharged from service as well as the order as contained in memo no. 536 dated 01.03.2019 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi, whereby the memorial appeal filed by the petitioner no. 1 has been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits that the respondent-JSSC had issued Advertisement No. 04/2015 for conducting Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination, 2015 in order to appoint constables in District Police Force and Jharkhand Armed Police (Vahini Nos. 2 to 10), wherein 50% of the vacancies in each district were reserved for Home Guards. The petitioner no. 1 applied for the said post against the vacancies advertised for Ranchi district and after going through the entire recruitment process, he came out successful. Thereafter, he was appointed in Anti-Terrorist Squad, Jharkhand, Ranchi with effect from 01.08.2017. Subsequently, he was issued show cause notice vide letter no. 2795 dated 08.06.2018 alleging that though he was aware of the fact that his appointment was made against the vacancies reserved for Home Guards and was not holding certificate of Home Guard, he failed to bring the said fact to the notice of the authorities and thus tried to obtain employment by suppressing the said fact. The petitioner no. 1 replied the said show cause notice stating that while submitting the application for the said post, he had mentioned “No” in the column of Home Guard and as such, he never claimed to have been trained as Home Guard. However, the respondent no. 5 discharged the petitioner no. 1 from the service of constable vide impugned memo no. 9048 dated 12.11.2018 alleging that since he was not a trained Home Guard, he was not eligible to be appointed on the post of constable
Illegal appointments cannot be perpetuated, and mere continuation in service does not confer rights; reinstatement is not permissible if the appointment was void ab initio.
Innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation should not be ousted from service, especially when there is no fraud or misrepresentation on their part.
The termination of an employee must be based on valid grounds and must follow principles of natural justice, and lack of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the employee's part can render the ....
Mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify a candidate for public service if the allegations are trivial and disclosed during the application process.
Inadvertent category error in application form does not justify candidature cancellation if disclosed suo motu, documents valid, and candidate qualifies on ESM own merit.
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with government orders and fair treatment in recruitment processes, ruling against arbitrary actions by authorities.
Discharge based on false caste representation is unjustified if the candidate disclosed accurate information during recruitment and relied on the appointment for an extended period.
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
