Baleshwar Yadav And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

I.A. No. 11501 of 2018

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 has expired during the pendency of this case and accordingly present interlocutory application for substitution has been filed.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as matter relates to appointment, the substitution petition will not serve any purpose.

Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing this interlocutory application.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 11501 of 2018 is not dismissed as not pressed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to delete the name of petitioner No. 1 in the cause title during the course of the day.

W.P. (S) No. 4069 of 2014

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were engaged on daily wages in Animal Husbandry, Department and have been working at State Animal Range, Gouria Karma, District Hazaribag since 1988-1998. He submits that a writ petition was filed before this court by the Union being CWJC No. 1442 of 1999 (R) wherein it was directed that the case of the persons already working would be considered against future appointment. He further submits that consequently Advertisement No. 1/2010 was published for appointment against vacancy of Class-IV post within Hazaribagh Collectorate and different offices under Jharkhand State falling within Hazaribagh district and certain marks were to be allocated to those candidates who were already working in terms of Clause-7 of the Advertisement. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have received information under Right to information as contained in Annexure-3 and as per the information , it was found that so far as the petitioners are concerned, the credit with regard to work of 10 years was not included on account of typographical error. The learned counsel submits that pursuant thereto a representation was filed by the petitioners mentioning that if the credit of 10 years work was given to the petitioners as was given to one similarly situated person namely Satayendra Kumar, their marks would have been 65 for Sitaram, 64 for Baleshwar yadav (since deceased) and 51 for Arjun Yadav. He submits that on account of inclusion of 30 marks for 10 years work, the petitioners would have come above the last selected candidate in their category. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of error committed by the respondents. He has also referred to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit to submit that if the marks for the work already rendered by the petitioners were added, the petitioners would have been selected.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that although no specific denial of aforesaid aspect of the matter has been made in the counter affidavit, but if similarly situated persons have been granted the marks as claimed by the petitioners and if the allocation of marks for the work rendered by the petitioners has been left out on account of any mistake, then the same can be taken care of by the respondent No. 2 before whom the petitioners have already filed representation.

Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vacancies are available for appointing the petitioners and there may not be any occasion to cancel anybody’s appointment and therefore no private person has been made respondent in this case.

Arguments are concluded.

Post this case for dictation of judgement on 23.08.2022.