Rajan Pandey and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Prashant Kumar

This application has been filed for giving a direction to the State Government for giving preference to the candidates, who obtained Diploma in the field of Agriculture and Horticulture from recognized University. It is also prayed that respondent be directed to appoint petitioners on the post of Jan Sevak, as they have acquired the training in the field of agriculture and horticulture.

It is stated that Birsa Agriculture University had invited applications for admission in one year training programme of horticulture supervisor. It is stated that the petitioners applied for aforesaid course and after passing the relevant examination they were declared successful and admitted by the Universtiy for the said training course.

It is then stated that on completion of aforesaid training, petitioners received diploma certificate from the Birsa Agriculture University. It is stated that the State of Bihar had issued a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for appointment on the post of Jan Sevak. It is further stated that in the said rule, there is no provision for giving preference to a candidate who acquired Diploma in the field of Agriculture and Horticulture from recognized University. Accordingly, petitioners'' union, namely "Trained Horticulture Supervisors Student Union", filed a representation ( Annexure-4) before the State Government, praying therein that the trained students in agriculture and horticulture be given preference in the appointment of Jan Sevak. It is further stated that State Government constituted a three member committee and the said members committee after considering the representations, recommended that State Government can take policy decision for giving preference for appointment on the post of Jan Sevak if any candidate possess Diploma Certificate in Horticulture.

The Grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of such recommendation, the State Government while issuing the rule ( Annexure-9), for appointment on the post of Jan Sevak, had not given any preference to the petitioners rather imposed another condition that candidates if selected in written examination and interview will have to take training for six months. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, decision of the State Government to give six months training to successful candidate is arbitrary, as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be misconceived, therefore, cannot be accepted.

From perusal of Annexure-9, I find that the State Government prescribed I. Sc. With physics, chemistry, Biology and math as minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Jan Sevak. In the said Rule, at clause-9 procedure for appointment has been prescribed. According to that all the eligible persons are required to appear in written examination and thereafter the successful candidate will be appointed in accordance with the merit list.

The Rule further provide that all the appointees have to under go a training for six months and the syllabus of the training will be finalized by the department on time to time. The Rule further provide that on the completion of training all the trainees are required to pass an examination. Thereafter they will be finally appointed on the post of Jan Sevak after adding the marks obtained in the competition as well as the marks obtained by the trainees on completion of training.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners have already acquired training, therefore, they are not required to be sent for another training, does not appear to be correct, because in the Rule, it is no where stated that the training will be given only in the field of agriculture and horticulture, rather the rule says that the syllabus of the training will be decided by the Government on time to time.

Under the said circumstance, aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

Giving or not giving preference to candidates who holds diploma certificate in the field of agriculture and horticulture and allied sciences, for appointment on the post of Jan Sevak is a policy decision of the State Government. It is well settled that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall restrain itself from giving direction commanding the State Government to take certain policy decision.

In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.