AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Since the issues raised in these writ applications are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for. The Respondents.
Prayer in these writ applications is for a direction upon the Respondents to appoint the petitioners on Class IV posts on the basis of the select panel dated 12.03.20.07, whereby the petitioners were declared as successful candidates and empanelled for their employment and also on the basis of the recommendations issued by the concerned authorities for their appointment in B.I.T. Sindri in Class IV posts.
A further prayer has been made to prohibit the Respondents from appointing the candidates, whose names figure below the names of the petitioners in the select panel.
The facts of the case of the petitioners is that in response to an Advertisement published in the local Newspaper on 27.10.2005, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to Class IV posts against existing vacancies in different departments and sections of the District administration of Dhanbad, the petitioners had submitted their respective applications alongwith the requisite Certificates in support of their academic qualifications as per the eligibility criteria.
Admit-cards were sent to the petitioners to appear at the examinations, which were scheduled to be held on 16.04.2006.
The petitioners appeared at the examination and the results by way of a merit list were thereafter published. On the basis of the merit list, a select panel was prepared. Names of 105 candidates, from the panel were recommended for their appointment at B.I.T. Sindri in the Class IV posts. By letter dated-12.03.2007, the individual candidates were intimated about the recommendations made.
The grievance of the petitioners is that despite such recommendations being made by the competent authorities, the Respondents-B.I.T., Sindri has refused to accept the petitioners and to issue them formal letter of appointment.
The further grievance of the petitioners is that the persons whose names appear below the names of the petitioners in the select panel, have been issued letters of appointment and have been absorbed in the Class IV posts at the P.M.C.H., Dhanbad whereas, the petitioners have been illegally denied the benefits of their appointment to which they were entitled on the basis of the recommendations made in their favour.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners would explain that the Secretary, Science and Technology Department by his letter daM-28.02.2006 (Annexure-5), had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for appointment of all the panelists at the B.I.T. Sindri on the vacant posts. Pursuant to the said letter of request, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad had requested the Director, B.I.T., Sindri for appointment of all the panelists and to issue the appointment letters to the panelists including the petitioners. It is further contended that despite the fact that several posts of Class IV are still lying vacant, yet the Director, B.I.T. Sindri has not been issuing the appointment letters to the petitioners.
Learned Counsel submits that the refusal of the Respondent-B.I.T., Sindri to issue the appointment letters to the petitioners is illegal and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel adds that the Respondent-B.I.T., Sindri cannot refuse to accept the recommendations of the District Administrative Authorities.
Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Respondent-State as also on behalf of the Respondent-B.I.T., Sindri.
The stand taken by the Respondent-B.I.T., Sindri, is that in the past, the same daily wagers who have been working under the B.I.T., Sindri, had filed writ application before the High Court and also before the Supreme Court and in one such case, the Apex Court had directed the State of Bihar to prepare a Scheme for regularization of the services of the ward servants, who have been serving for more than one year. Pursuant to such directions of the Apex Court, the State Government of Bihar had prepared a waiting list of all such ward servants, who had completed one year of service with intent that the vacancies as and when arise, would be filled up by regularization of the wait-listed candidates. It is contended that in view of the obligation to absorb the candidates of the waiting list, it would not be possible for the B.I.T., Sindri to appoint the petitioners or any other person from the district panel, in pursuance to the Advertisement published on 27.11.2005 and the examination held on 16.04.2006.
It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was informed that B.I.T., Sindri was not a Muffasil level office and hence the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to make appointment for Class IV posts for B.I.T. Sindri, since he has no administrative control over it. Such powers, according to the counsel for the B.I.T. Sindri, are vested with the Director, Department of Science and Technology and the same has now been delegated to the B.I.T., Sindri.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents-B.I.T., Sindri would further inform by reference to Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, that Annexure-C is a letter dated-19.03.2007, issued by the Secretary. Science & Technology, Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby a direction has been issued that only the wait listed candidates should be absorbed against the existing vacancies in the B.I.T., Sindri, since the B.I.T., Sindri was not a Muffasil level office.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand, would want to controvert the stand taken by the Respondent-B.I.T., Sindri on the ground that neither before the High Court nor before the Supreme Court was any issue raised regarding the status of the B.I.T. Sindri, as to whether it comes within the purview of the Muffasil office or within the purview of the State level office.
Learned Counsel adds further, that the Advertisement inviting applications for filling up the posts were issued on the instructions of the Secretary of the concerned Department of the State Government and the Interview Committee was also represented by the Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) as a member of the Committee and at no point of time, was any such issue raised by the Respondent No. 2 as to the status of the B.I.T., Sindri, Furthermore, the Respondent-State of Jharkhand had, in the various writ applications, filed before this Court by similarly situated candidates, given firm assurances and promises for filling up the vacancies in the Class IV Grade in the various departments including the B.I.T. Sindri and in fulfillment of such promises the advertisement was issued, examinations held and the examination process was concluded with the recommendations of the 155 candidates including the petitioners, for their appointment.
Learned Counsel in this context would refer to a judgment, passed by a Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Abul Kalam and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand and Ors. vide W.P. (S) No. 1938 of 2007 and submit that the same issues as involved in the present writ applications, were raised by the writ petitioners, therein. The Respondent-Deputy Commissioner in the earlier writ applications had raised a similar controversy by referring to the waiting list panel prepared by the Government of Bihar pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court concerning the ward servants of the B.I.T., Sindri, who had completed one year of service. The same stand regarding the status of the B.I.T., Sindri, was also taken by the Respondents in the aforesaid writ application. The stand taken by the Respondents in the aforesaid writ applications was rejected by the Court and a direction was given to the Director, B.I.T., Sindri to consider the claim of the writ petitioners therein, for their appointment on Class IV posts on the basis of the recommendations made in their favour. Learned Counsel adds that the same ratio would apply to the facts of the present writ applications.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly on the basis of the instructions issued by the Secretary, Science & Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand, process for appointment of candidates in the existing vacancies of Class IV posts in the various departments of the State Government, was initiated by inviting applications through Advertisement. The process of selection was adopted by holding common examinations and thereafter a select panel was prepared. Admittedly, the petitioners were declared as successful and furthermore, recommendations for their appointment, was issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the Director, B.I.T. Sindri. It also appeal''s that the recommendations for appointment of the 155 candidates were made on the basis of the informations furnished that as many as 155 vacancies in Class IV posts did exist in the B.I.T. Sindri. It also appears from the documents annexed that earlier on previous occasions also, appointment to the Class IV posts in the B.I.T. Sindri on the recommendations made by the District authorities was made. It is apparent from the above that when the Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Government of Jharkhand had issued instructions to the Deputy Commissioner of the District to initiate the process of appointment on Class IV posts in the various departments including the B.I.T. Sindri, no issue was raised regarding the status of B.I.T. Sindri. Even otherwise, since the process was initiated at the behest of the Secretary of the Department at the State Government level, it has to be deemed that the Deputy Commissioner of the District was vested with the authority to make the selection and also to recommend the names of the candidates for their appointments in the various departments. It also appears, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that such recommendations were also made by the Secretary of the Science & Technology Department. If this is so, then there is no genuine reason as to why the Respondents-B.I.T., Sindri should raise the issue as to its status and refuse to acknowledge the recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the B.I.T., Sindri does not fall within the Mufassil level office.
On going through the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Abul Kalam and Ors. (Supra), I find that the facts as raised in the aforesaid case are identical to the facts of the present case. The ratio decided in the case of Md. Abul Kalam and Ors. (Supra), therefore, squarely applies to the facts of the present writ applications [W.P. (S) Nos. 2142, 2868, 2871 & 4652 of 2007].
In the light of the above discussions, I dispose of these writ applications [W.P. (S) Nos. 2142, 2868, 2871 & 4652 of 2007] by remitting the cases of the petitioners in the present writ applications [W.P. (S) Nos. 2142, 2868, 2871 & 4652 of 2007], to the Director, B.I.T. Sindri to consider the claim of each of these petitioners [W.P. (S) Nos. 2142, 2868, 2871 & 4652 of 2007] on the basis of the recommendations for their appointment as made by the competent authorities and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the Respondents.