IMPORTANT POINT
Candidates wrongfully excluded from appointments are entitled to notional seniority from the date they should have been appointed, correcting delays caused by administrative latches.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for the following reliefs:

“(I) For issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions, particularly a writ in nature mandamus commanding upon Respondent No. 5 (Respondent-JPSC) to issue appropriate orders improving the date of recommendation of appointments of the Petitioners, i.e. on the date when the similarly situated candidates of 3rd Combined Civil Services Examination, conducted by JPSC, were recommended for appointment (change from the date 30.04.2013 to the date 02.08.2010); and further pass directions upon Respondent State to improve the date of appoints of the Petitioners i.e. w.e.f. from the date when the similarly situated candidates of 3rd Combined Civil Services Examination were appointed/offered appointment (change from the date 08.06.2013 to the date 11.08.2010).

(II) For issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions, particularly a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of notification no 5835, dated 13.11.2020, issued under the signature of Respondent no. 2, as contained in Annexure-13, whereby and where under the seniority of the petitioners have been wrongly fixed, and they have been placed below the candidates, i.e. respondent no. 7 to 119, these Private Respondents have been recommended appointment by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on the post of Deputy Collector in 4th Combined Civil Services Examination in terms of the Adv. No. 07/2010, whereas the petitioners were recommended for appointment by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on the post of Deputy Collector in 3rd Combined Civil Services Examination in terms of Adv. No. 11/2007.

(III) For issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions, particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No. 1 to 4 to prepare fresh/revised seniority list by rectifying the mistakes/discrepancies in seniority list as contained in notification no. 5835, dated 13.11.2020, issued by the Respondent No. 2, directing to placing the Petitioner No. 1 at serial no. 295 i.e. just above the Respondent No. 7, Nirmal Soren and Petitioner No. 2 at serial no. 296 i.e. just above respondent no 8, Prabhkar Mirdha, meaning thereby, over and above the candidates of 4 combined JPSC and further rearrange Petitioners' seniority on the basis of their merit position amongst the members of 3rd JPSC, in accordance with the results of 3rd JPSC examinations.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an Advertisement No. 11/2007 was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short, JPSC) for the 3rd Combined Civil Services Examination for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector and Deputy Superintendent of Police and on other posts. The recommendation of selected and successful candidates was made on 02.08.2010 and appointment notification was published on 11.08.2010. This contained list of candidates granted appointment by the State and the names of the petitioners were not there in the recommended list or the appointed list.

3. At this juncture itself it is necessary to indicate that on the one hand, the JPSC issued another Advertisement No. 07 of 2010 by which the selection process of 4th Combined Civil Services Examination has been started; and on the other hand, the petitioner no. 1 on perusal of answer sheet of Geography Paper-1 found that 24 marks as awarded by the examiner were not added in her total marks of Geography Paper-1; whereas the petitioner no. 2 on perusal of her answer sheet of Anthropology Paper-1 found that 7 marks were not added in total marks of Anthropology Paper-1. Accordingly, the petitioners moved before this Court.

Vide order dated 03.10.2012 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3532/2012, this Court directed the JPSC to issue fresh marks-sheet in favour of the petitioner no. 2. The corrected marks-sheet was issued in favour of petitioner no. 2 showing therein total marks of the petitioner no. 2 as 781.8 marks in ST catego