AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar
The facts and issues involved in these wit applications are similar, therefore are heard together and disposed of by this order. Petitioners were working in Pakur Collect orate on daily wage. It appears that some of the petitioners and other daily wages workers filed a writ application in Patti a High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 891 of 1998 for regularization of their services. Aforesaid with application disposed of on 27.03.2000 and respondents were directed to prepare a panel of daily wages workers according to their seniority. It is also ordered that after preparation of panel, respondents should take steps for regular appointment, as per the circular of the State Government. It further appears that when order of Hon''ble Patna High Court not complied by respondents, then a contempt application filed vide M.J.C. No. 35 of 2001. In that contempt application, this Court directed respondents to ensure compliance of aforesaid order passed by Patna High Court. It then appears that in the year 2004, another contempt application filed vide Cont. Case (C) No. 99 of 2004 which was disposed on 24.06.2004 and following order passed:
An additional affidavit has: been filed on behalf of the opposite parties in pursuance of order dated 13th May 2004, wherein the following statement made:
An advertisement for appointment against Class-IV in the district has already been published on 3rd April, 2003.
The weightage to the daily wages employees over the other applicants has been given in the following manner:
(i) The candidate, who worked on daily wages regularly for one year has been given two marks.
(ii) Candidate working for six months has been given one mark.
(iii) The candidates who have worked for minimum ten days on daily wages in a year have been given 0.5 marks.
(iv) The candidates who have worked for some days during last five years have also been given a total of two marks. Accordingly, the panel has been prepared and published. Out of this panel, appointment will be made against the vacancies as per Govt. rules and instructions. As far age relaxation is concerned, it will be considered as per Govt. instructions.
(v) It is very relevant to mention here that the petitioner has worked on daily wages for the period of two years two months and four days. As per decision as mentioned above the petitioner has been given four marks as weightage with respect to his work done on daily wages which is mentioned at serial 28 of the panel approved by the District Establishment Committee.
Step has been taken for finalization of panel. As per the Government circular, objection has been invited which was to be submitted on 23rd June 2004. Now, it will be scrutinized and finalised within two months.
In the meantime, proposal for roaster clearance has been sent to the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide letter dated 31s'' May, 2004 for approval. The entire process of selection and appointment is likely to be completed approximately within six months from the date of disposal of the objection (23rd July, 2004).
A copy of the provisional panel has been enclosed as Annexure-B against which objections have been called for. The name of the petitioner has been shown therein at serial no. 28 with marks obtained by petitioner including the weightage of four marks allowed to him.
In the facts and circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to proceed against the opposite parties for the present, direct them to finalise the panel; complete the process and issue letter of appointment by 31s'' March, 2005.
Counsel for the State will inform of this order to the Appointing Authority and the Secretary of the Department.
This application stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned S.C.-III
Thus it appears that order passed by ''Patna High Court has merged in the aforesaid order of this Court. It appears that in consonance with the aforesaid order passed by this Court, final panel was published on 24.08.2004. It is relevant to mention that on the aforesaid date, two panels were published, one for peon and another for driver. In the panel of peon Writ Petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2875 of 2005, W.P. (S) No. 6681 of 2005 and W.P.(S) No. 2477 of 2005 are at serial nos. 56,65 and 23 whereas petitioner nos. 1,2 & 4 of W.P.(S) No. 7508 of 2006 are at serial no. 62, 63 & 59 respectively. It is relevant to mention that petitioner no. 3 of W.P.(S) No. 7508 of 2006 is at serial no. 14 of the panel prepared for driver. It is relevant of mention that names of petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2526 of 2005 and W.P.(S) No. 2547 of 2005 did not find place in the aforesaid panels.
It is stated in the counter-affidavit that out of aforesaid panels, altogether 73 persons appointed in different departments as peon. It is stated by petitioners that even after appointment of 73 persons, so many posts of Class-lV employees are still Vacant. List of such vacancies (Annexure-5) given in W.P. (S) No. 7508 of 2006. In the counter-affidavit aforesaid statements given by the petitioner- at paragraph 18 of the writ application has been admitted. In the counter affidavit respondents did not assign reason as to why they stopped process of appointment after filling up only 73 posts, though this Court specifically gave direction to respondents to complete process of appointment by 31st of March 2005.
It has been held by their lordships of Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, that a candidate has no right to be appointed only because his name find place in the panel, but if State Government is going to fill up vacancy through that pane, then State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidate and no discrimination can be permitted. In the instant case, admittedly vacancy still exists. Under the said circumstance, when respondents made appointment on the basis of panel prepared in the year 2004 in pursuance of the direction of this Court, it is incumbent upon them to fill up all the vacancies and ought not have stopped the process of appointment denying equal opportunity to others, whose names find place in the same panel. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment action of respondents cannot be sustained. Accordingly, 1 direct respondents to consider the "case of petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2875 of 2005, W.P.(S) No. 6681 of 2005, W.P.(S) No. 2477 of 2005, and W.P.(S) No. 7508 of 2006 for appointment, as vacancy still exists.
So far petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 2526 of 2005 and W.P.(S) No. 2547 of 2005 are not entitled to any relief from this Court as then names did not find place in the panel prepared in the year 2004. Accordingly, these applications are disposed of.