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 completed.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

Prayer

2. Instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Judicial Officer, Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) pursuant to the Advt. No. 12/2018, issued by respondent No. 2 as one post in her category is still vacant.

Facts of the Case

3. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short “the JPSC”) floated an advertisement being Advt. No. 12/2018 for appointment of Judicial Officers (Civil Judge, Junior Division). Altogether 107 posts were advertised out of which 5 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. The petitioner having the requisite qualification, applied for the same under SC category and participated in the Preliminary Test, in which petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, she appeared in the Mains Examination and successfully competed the same. Consequently, she was called for interview and the petitioner appeared on the scheduled date i.e. on 20.01.2020 at the office of respondent-JPSC. Thereafter, the respondent- JPSC published the final result in which the name of petitioner did not figure.

4. It is the case of petitioner that one Priyanka Kumari, who was at Sl. No. 5 under SC Category did not appear for certificate verification and as such, her candidature for appointment was rejected. Since the rank of petitioner was not clear, she sought information under Right to Information Act, in response to which vide letter dated 22.12.2020, it was informed by the respondent-JPSC to the petitioner that her rank was 6th in SC Category. It is the specific case of petitioner that since Priyanka Kumari, who was 5th in rank under SC Category, failed to appear for certificate verification, the petitioner ought to have been called for the same. But the same was not done for the reasons best known to the respondents. Though petitioner submitted representation on 19.10.2020 before the respondent No. 2 as also to respondent No. 3 on 22.10.2020 requesting them to consider her case for appointment but no heed has been paid to her such request.

Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is not a case where the appointment letter has been served and somebody has not joined but it is a case where during the selection process the 5th rank holder did not appear for certificate verification and hence, the immediate next candidate having 6th rank i.e. the petitioner ought to have been called for certificate verification. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents are duty bound to consider the case of petitioner for appointment pursuant to Advt. No. 12/2018 in view of the fact that one post under SC Category to which petitioner belongs is still vacant against which petitioner can be accommodated. Learned counsel further argues that Priyanka Kumari (5th in rank under SC Category) did not appear for certificate verification, the respondents were duty bound to call the petitioner (who was 6th in rank under SC Category) for such certificate verification as she was the next immediate candidate having 6th rank in the category of SC. The action of respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:

(I) Munja Praveen Vs. State of Telangana , reported in (2017) 14 SCC 797 .

(II) W.P.(S). No. 2