Asha Devi And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Shree Chandrashekhar, J

Six applicants who were seeking appointment on Class-IV post approached the writ Court in WP(S) No.2386 of 2008 with a grievance that a reserved category candidate should not have been appointed on the general category posts.

The facts pleaded in WP(S) No.2386 of 2008 are summarized in the following words:

“3. Briefly stated, an advertisement was published in the newspapers for preparing a panel of class IV employees in Sahibganj district. In the penal prepared on 09.04.2007 for appointment against class –IV posts, the petitioners' name figured at Sl. Nos. 10, 12, 14, 17, 15 and 19. The petitioners claim that inspite of their name in the general penal, other candidates under SC category and OBC category have been recommended for appointment against 12 posts of general category.”

The stand taken by the writ petitioners before the writ Court was that under Rule 4(3) of the Reservation Rules, 1991, 50% seats were reserved for general category candidates while 50% posts were to be filled up through the reserved category candidate. According to the writ petitioners, twelve candidates from the reserved category who had obtained marks higher than the cut-off marks for the general category candidate were appointed against the general category vacancies.

The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 2nd March 2017 against which the writ petitioners preferred LPA No.252 of 2017.

Mr. Abhishek Sriwastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by an order dated 3rd July 2018, LPA No.252 of 2017 has been disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the present petitioners to file Civil Review petition.

The order dated 3rd July 2018 passed in LPA No.252 of 2017 reads as under:

“I.A. No. 2414 of 2018

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 23 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in paragraph nos. 2 and 3, it appears that there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 23 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

This interlocutory application is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 252 of 2017

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that once a candidate is getting age relaxation in reserved category and even such candidate is getting higher marks, he cannot be treated as general category candidate because in general category he will be age barred. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated and, hence, learned counsel for the appellants is seeking permission to withdraw this Letters Patent Appeal with a liberty to prefer a Civil Review application before the learned Single Judge so that vital aspect of the matter can be adjudicated and if need arises, the memo of the writ petition can also be amended.

In view of the aforesaid vital aspect raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, disposed of as withdrawn, at this stage. Liberty is reserved with the appellants to prefer a Civil Review application before the learned Single Judge.

This Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, disposed of.”

Mr. Abhishek Sriwastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the procedure adopted by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for appointment on the Class-IV posts pursuant to the Advertisement No. O.C.-02-04/2005 was quite contrary to the procedure which was adopted in the year 2008, whereas appointments were made in the year 2007 from the same panel prepared pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement adopting a different criteria.

On a glance at the order passed by the Letters Patent Court, it appears that the petitioners have been granted liberty to prefer a review petition on an assumption that such reserved category candidates who were selected against general category vacancies had crossed the age bar for a general category candidate. No doubt, a candidate under reserved category cannot be selected against the general category vacancy if he has crossed the maximum age limit for the general category candidate. However, there is no restriction under any rule or notification issued by the State of Jharkhand prohibiting appointment of a reserved category candidate against general category vacancy if he has secured more marks than the cut-off marks for the general category and fulfills all other criteria for appointment of a general category candidate.

No quantifiable data has been produced by the petitioners nor have they pleaded that the twelve candidates who were appointed against general category vacancies had crossed the maximum age limit fixed for a general category candidate.

Besides the aforesaid aspect, this Court finds that no indulgence can be granted in the present review petition for issuing any direction to the State of Jharkhand in respect of the vacancies advertised way back in the year 2005.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, Civil Review No. 65 of 2018 is dismissed.