Ranjit Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Sr.S.C.I appearing for the

Respondent-State.

In this writ application, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order as contained in Memo dated 02.02.2013,

issued under the signature of the District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Palamau and further for a writ of mandamus commanding

upon the respondents to give effect to the Office Order as contained in Memo dated 01.02.2013 and further for a direction upon the respondents to

reserve two posts of the Junior Engineer, awaiting the decision of the present writ petition.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application are that in pursuance to the advertisement published in the

newspaper on 27.04.2012, the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer on contractual basis. After fulfilling all the eligibility

criteria, the petitioners were allowed to appear before the Interview Board. As per the minutes of the meeting dated 30.01.2013, the appointment of

the petitioners were made by the District Level Committee. However, to the utter consternation of the petitioners, the District Education officer,

Jharkhand Education Project, Palamu vide Office Order as contained in memo dated 02.02.2013, cancelled the appointment letter dated 01.02.2013

issued to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not fulfill the criteria relating to age as per the second Notification as contained in letter

dated 17.10.2011. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioners have submitted their representations dated 12.02.2013 and 10.04.2013

and since the representations of the petitioner have fallen on the deaf ears of the respondents, the petitioners, left with no alternative and efficacious

remedy, have been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioners

is highly illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. Learned counsel further submits that the appointment of the petitioners have been cancelled on the ground

that the petitioners do not fulfill the criteria relating to age, as per the second advertisement dated 17.10.2011, whereas, the petitioners were appointed

in pursuance to the advertisement dated 27.04.2012. Learned counsel further submits that due to violation of the principles of natural justice,

petitioners have been seriously prejudiced as the petitioners had no opportunity to raise the point in support of their case before the concerned

authority.

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3, wherein, it has been, inter alia,

submitted that it is very obvious that the petitioners are not competent to apply for the post of Junior Engineer in Jharkhand Education Project,

Palamau due to their overage and as and when this fact became obvious, curative action has been taken immediately, to prevent the miscarriage of

justice and therefore, the Memo dated 02.02.2013, issued by the District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education project, Palamau is in accordance

with law and enforceable orders/circulars of the State applicable to the case of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as

prayed for. It has been further stated that the public employment (permanent, temporary, regular or short term engagement on contractual or ad hoc

basis) must be in terms of the Constitutional Scheme, Laws and rules made thereunder and Constitution has provided also affirmative action to ensure

that unequal’s are not be treated with equals. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the prayer of the petitioners is not

maintainable and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed in limine.

Learned counsel for the Respondents-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has submitted that it is admitted

case of the petitioners that the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is 04.02.1969 and on 01.07.2010, he was 41 years 04 months 27 days old and date of

birth of the petitioner no. 2 is 01.04.1970 and on 01.07.2010 he was 40 years 09 months old, which proves conclusively that the petitioners were

overage on the date of application pursuant to prescribed cut off date in letters dated 17.10.2011 and 11.01.2012 and specific term of

recruitment/selection of State which were applicable in the case of the petitioners and other concerned, the petitioners were not entitled to be

selected/engaged against consolidated vacancy of 12 unit of Junior Engineer in Jharkhand Education Project, Palamau. Learned counsel further

submits that it is a settled proposition of law that unequal’s should not be treated with equals.

After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the

petitioners due to the following facts and reasons : -

(i) Relaxation in age to provide favour of particular person, is patently contrary to sound public policy and providing any concession by relaxing the

upper age limit to the petitioners will amount to providing another job opportunity to unqualified candidates at the cost of qualified eligible candidates in

utter violation of advertisement recruitment rule and Government Circular.

(ii) It is a settled proposition of law that unequal’s should not be treated with equals.

(iii) It is admitted case of the petitioners that the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is 04.02.1969 and date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is 01.04.1970

and therefore they were overage pursuant to prescribed cut off date in letter dated 17.10.2011 and 11.01.2012 and specific term of

recruitment/selection of State was applicable in the case of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners were not eligible to be considered for selection

against the post of Junior Engineer in Jharkhand Education Project, Palamau.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.