Manoj Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith issue

appointment letter for the post of Daftary in favour of petitioner.

The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement for appointment on the post of Daftary for the persons, who are enrolled in Employment

Exchange, the petitioner applied through the employment exchange and after going the selection process, it is alleged that the petitioner was finally

selected for appointment, but the matter was kept pending and only assurance was given that appointment letter would be issued soon. Being

aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation before the authorities but it did not evoke any response.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even after selection was made in the year 1991, the respondents for the one reason and

another has kept the matter pending, but, it is relevant to mention here that till date the appointment has not been cancelled. Even in the year 2001,

again decision was taken by the Establishment Committee for appointment of Daftari with regard to present petitioner. Referring to Annexure 8 to

the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the impugned advertisement, person who has been

interviewed along with the petitioner for the Post of Assistantcum- Typist has already been appointed. It has further been submitted that now by

passage of time, the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit for applying in Govt. Job and kept waiting for appointment letter. It has further been

submitted that it is not the case where there is lacuna in selection process by the Establishment Committee or any misconduct has been committed

on the part of petitioner; but, without any rhyme and reason, the petitioner had to suffer.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as a matter of fact, Rule relating to appointment of Daftari is not available and

in absence of said Rule, decision on recommendation of Selection Committee for appointment of petitioner has not yet been taken. As such, the

Deputy Commissioner, Palamu has sought Rule for appointment of Daftari from Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and

Rajbhasha Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide letter dated 14.07.2016 followed by reminder dated 22.12.2016, but the same has not been

received. It has further been submitted that decision on recommendation for appointment of petitioner on the post of Daftari will be taken as soon

as it is received from the State Government.

From perusal of the record, it appears that pursuant to advertisement made in the year 1991 for appointment on the post of Daftari, the

petitioner was selected, but, it is an admitted position that at no point of time, he was offered appointment letter. Mere finding place his name in

select list, does not give any indefeasible right to get appointment and on this score alone, the petitioner cannot claim his right of appointment.

Empanelment, at best, is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Salam Samarjeet Singh Vs. Manipur at Imphal as reported in (2016) 10 SCC 484. Besides, it is case of the

State that Rules relating to appointment of Daftari was not available and in absence of said Rule, decision on recommendation of Selection

Committee for appointment of petitioner could not be taken.

Be that as it may be, on perusal of record, it would be quite apparent that the petitioner with the fond hope of getting job has been subjected to

indifference and callousness, which has belied his legitimate expectation of getting into job and in the process more than two decades have elapsed

and the petitioner has been fighting a long battle against the mighty Government, who has got scant regard for the rule of law and equity under

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. I strongly deprecate the action of the respondents in putting the petitioner in the State of uncertainty,

even though he was found suitable by the Selection Committee; because of absence of Rules for appointment of Daftari which could not be

obtained from the concerned department even after two decades. I henceforth, hope and trust the State functionary to be vigilant and careful in

such matter.

Under such circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner or no direction could be given to the State for appointment of the petitioner

on the post in question. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.