Sunil Das vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sreenu Garapati,

learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of letter dated 21.05.2018 whereby the petitioner's post for Deputy Collector was

cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has not joined within the prescribed period of appointment.

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission has invited applications for 5th Combines Civil Services (PT) Examination, 2013 vide Advertisement No.

06 of 2013. The petitioner has appeared in the P.T. examination. The petitioner became successful in the said examination and being successful he

appeared in main examination and interview. The petitioner got 3rd rank and the name of the petitioner was recommended for ""Jharkhand

Administrative Service"" by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for the post of Deputy Collector. The petitioner was working in the Armed

Forces Headquarters and request was made by the petitioner vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition for extending the period of joining by six months.

Pursuant thereto by letter dated 06.10.2016 the period for joining was extended till 31.12.2016. The petitioner filed another letter on 05.06.2017

whereby request was made for further extension of time for joining on the ground of personal reason. The petitioner again filed application on

13.11.2017 disclosing that the petitioner has earlier filed petition for extension of time but nothing has been indicated to the petitioner thereafter, the

petitioner again requested to consider the case sympathetically. The petitioner again filed application dated 22.03.2018 and prayer for sympathetic

consideration of the case of the petitioner was made.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was third in rank and he was selected for the

Administrative Service of the State but in view of the fact the petitioner was not being relieved by the earlier employer, the petitioner has not been

able to join. He submits that the petitioner has filed petition for extension of time but without any cogent reason post of the petitioner has been

cancelled.

Per contra, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that ample opportunity to the petitioner was provided

to join the post but inspite of that the petitioner has failed to join. He refers to Resolution of the Government brought on record by way of Annexure- B

to the counter-affidavit and submits that only 1 month time is there for joining and in view Clause XV of the said Resolution if the post is not filled up

the same shall be included in the next notification. He submits that the case of the respondent-State is fully covered with the judgment rendered in the

case of "" State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Jagdish Chopra"" reported in (2007) 8 SCC 161 in which it has been held as under:-

Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is admittedly governed by the statutory rules. All recruitments, therefore, are required to be

made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9(3) of the Rules does not specifically provide for the period for which the merit list shall remain valid but the

intent of the legislature is absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined only once in a year. Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years

could be filled up from the select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in absence of any rule, ordinary period of

validity of select list should be one year. In State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra this Court opined: (SCC p. 564, para 9) ""9. In the

aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year.

Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel."" It was further held: (SCC p. 565,

para 13) ""13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the proposition that even the wait list must be acted upon having regard to the

terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed period.

It is well-settled principle of law that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and

Asha Kaul v. State of J&K.)

He further relied on judgment in the case of ""State of Bihar & Others. Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra"" reported in (2006) 12 SCC 56 1in which it

has been held as under:

The said writ petition was taken up for hearing in 2004. The High Court allowed the same, stating:

While hearing the matter on 29-6-2004 I had verbally asked learned GP 6 to find out as to whether any post of Pashudhan Sahayak is vacant

pursuant to which a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed. In para 56 of the affidavit it is stated that some posts of Pashudhan Sahayak are

vacant in the office. Since the petitioner was already selected for this post and he could not report his joining due to some unavoidable circumstances,

in my opinion, his case should be considered for the post of Pashudhan Sahayak which is still vacant.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the authorities concerned are directed to accept the joining of the petitioner on the post of

Pashudhan Sahayak pursuant to his selection vide order as contained in Annexure 2 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production

of a copy of this order.

....................................................................................................................

In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a

year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel.

...................................................................................................................

In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, the High Court should not have allowed the respondent herein to join his services only

on the basis of sympathy.

It is now also well settled that in absence of any legal right, the Court should not issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus on the basis of

sympathy.

Relying on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the materials on record. It transpires from the materials on record that

petitioner was provided opportunity to join the post but inspite of that the petitioner has failed to join. First letter of joining was 14.06.2016. Further, it

transpires that the government has given indulgence by way of extending date of joining till 31.12.2016 inspite of that the petitioner has not joined the

post. The case of the respondent-State is fully covered with the judgements in (Jagdish Chopra) (supra) and Amrendra Kumar Mishra (supra). On the

sympathetic ground, no relief can be extended to the petitioner as it is admitted fact that period of joining was extended. Accordingly, this writ petition

is dismissed.