Manohar Mahto and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—1. Aggrieved by rejection of their representation vide order dated 12.06.2013 and, seeking a direction to the respondents to declare their result for the district from which they applied, the present writ petition has been filed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case narrated in the writ petition are summarised thus;

"Pursuant to Advertisement dated 21.10.2011 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Village Level Workers (VLWs) in various districts in the State of Jharkhand, the petitioners submitted their applications. The petitioners appeared in the examination held on 08.01.2012 from the centres mentioned in their respective admit-cards however, when the result was published in February, 2012, the petitioners detected that their candidature was considered from the district of their domicile. The petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1946 of 2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.10.2012, permitting the petitioners to submit representation to the Director (Agriculture), Department of Agriculture and Cane Development. As noticed above, vide order dated 12.06.2013, petitioners'' objection has been rejected."

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners referring to Clause 8 of the Advertisement submits that the respondent-State cannot make appointment based on domicile of the applicants. It is contended that the stipulation under Clause 8 restricting the candidates from the State of Jharkhand to submit application from place of their domicile only is in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel relied on decision in "Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and Others" , (2002) 6 SCC 562 and "Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras" , AIR 1968 SC 1012.

Clause 8 of the Advertisement is extracted below:

In Hindi:

In English:

"Application form shall be submitted only for one district by a candidate, and on the basis of merit list prepared, considering reservation and vacancy in the concerned district, the recommendation for appointment of candidates shall be made by a committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, and on that basis appointment letter shall be issued at the level of the concerned Deputy Commissioner".

A perusal of Clause-8 in Advertisement dated 21.10.2011 does not disclose that the candidates were required to apply from the place of their domicile. It appears from the application that the candidates were required to identify the State Code and the District Code in their applications. Clause 9 of the Advertisement makes it clear that the candidates were required to appear from the examination centres in the district selected by them. There is no other column in the application which would suggest that if a candidate who has selected the District Code Ranchi however, submits application in the Ramgarh District would be considered for appointment from the vacancies in the Ramgarh District.

In "Kailash Chand Sharma" case, under the State Government Circular a provision was made for awarding bonus marks to the residents of the district concerned and the rural areas. Such provision would definitely put other candidates in a dis-advantageous position whereas, restricting application by a candidate from a particular district would not cause prejudice to any candidate. After all, a candidate can submit only one application and he/she can claim appointment on only one post. The advertisement issued on 21.10.2011 nowhere stipulates that the candidates must apply from the district of his/her domicile. The applications produced by the petitioners do not disclose a column of domicile. Though, it is asserted that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 applied for the district of Giridih, petitioner No. 3 applied for Godda district and petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 applied for Hazaribag however, the petitioners have not denied that they appeared in the examination from the centres in the districts which they had disclosed in their applications. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners misunderstood Clause 8 of the Advertisement and column 14 in the application. The alleged misunderstanding of the petitioners cannot form the foundation for raising a plea of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the petitioners appeared in the examination and after having been declared unsuccessful they approached this Court. At the first instance, they did not challenge Clause 8 in the Advertisement. The decision in "Minor P. Rajendran" case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is in relation to admission in integrated MBBS course. Rule 8 of Madras Educational Rules provided distribution of seats district-wise. The facts of the said case are entirely different from the facts in the present case. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that restricting the candidates to submit application from one district only may deprive a candidate opportunity to seek appointment because in a particular district there may not be vacancy in a particular category, is liable to be rejected. Such restriction is applicable for all the applicants and moreover, a reserve category candidate can qualify under the general category also.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.