Back
DEEPAK ROSHAN
Shyamal Rathaur, S/o. Sri Ramesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since both these writ applications involves common issue; as such, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Both the petitions were preferred by the respective petitioners for quashing of Clause-4 (Kha) of the Resolution dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure-9). Further prayer has been made to quash and set aside the decision as contained in Important Information dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure-10). The writ petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to issue appointment letter to these petitioners pursuant to Advertisement No.03/2018 as the petitioners were declared successful candidates not only in the written test, but they were also declared successful in driving test as well as in the medical test.
4. The brief fact of these cases are that the Government of Jharkhand issued one Notification dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure-1), to the effect that only the local resident of 13 districts shall be eligible for appointment in Class-III and Class-IV posts. Another Resolution dated 01.06.2018 was issued with respect to rest of the 11 scheduled districts and it was clari
The court emphasized equal treatment for similarly situated candidates in public service appointments, quashing blanket cancellation of appointments.
Recruitment clauses mandating 100% reservation based on local residency in Scheduled Districts violate constitutional provisions, necessitating revision of merit list to ensure equitable opportunity ....
A candidate must meet the established criteria and cut-off marks to be considered for appointment, and vacancies cannot provide an indefeasible right to appointment when the selection process is comp....
The court emphasized that all similarly situated candidates must be treated alike, directing the appointment of the applicant based on Supreme Court guidelines.
The judgment emphasizes the statutory requirement for rules to have binding effect and the need for publication in the official gazette. It also highlights the limited scope for interference under Ar....
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
