Upendra Kumar Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand

Ananda Sen, J

Heard the parties at length.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the Memo No.799 dated 19.12.2020, whereby and whereunder a decision has been taken with a direction to the Appointing Authority to terminate the services of the petitioner along with others.

2.1. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order as contained in Memo No.48 dated 11.01.2021, so far it relates to this petitioner (serial No.10), whereby and whereunder the service of the petitioner has been terminated.

An Advertisement was published in the year 2010 being Advertisement No.01/2010, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, on 29.07.2010, inviting applications for appointment on the post of Class-IV employees in the District Collectorate of Palamu and in different offices under the Government in Palamu District.

3.1. After the appointment process had already started, the respondents tried to change the eligibility criteria of the Advertisement, which had been challenged by some candidates through writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016 (Sarita Kumari & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and W.P.(S) No.2021 of 2016 (Kundal Prasad Gupta & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), before this Court, challenging the action of the respondents.

3.2. Thereafter, considering the experience of the petitioner, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 08.03.2018. The petitioner joined his service on 14.03.2018.

3.3. In W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 (Sanjay Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) along with other Analogues cases, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petitions vide order dated 12.09.2018 and directed the respondents to prepare a merit list as per the marks obtained in the written examination conducted by them. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the candidates were appointed.

3.4. Thereafter the petitioner along with twenty-five candidates were show caused on the ground that they did not possess the requisite experience, thus their appointment is bad.

3.5. After the petitioner’s reply was considered, the respondents passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the order is absolutely cryptic and the same does not even considered the reply given by the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel tries to put forth the fact that the petitioner worked in different places and has requisite number of work experience, thus he could not have been removed.

I am not entering into the aforesaid question whether the petitioner has got necessary qualification or necessary work experience or not, in view of the latest development which has taken place pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2010, in terms of which the petitioner was appointed.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed against the Class-IV vacancies pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement bearing No.01/2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu on 29.07.2010.

The aforesaid Advertisement was subject matter of Civil Appeal No(s). 13950-13951 of 2024 in the case of Amrit Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 280. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2025, quashed the said Advertisement No.01/2010 dated 29.07.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, and also quashed the consequential proceedings conducted in pursuance thereof being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and violative of the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all appointments made in furtherance of the direction of the High Court dated 12.09.2018 with respect to the posts are quashed. It was further ordered that the respondents shall issue a fresh Advertisement which should be in compliance with the constitutional mandate to appoint and fill up the posts. Para-41 of judgment dated 10.02.2025 reads as follows:-

“41. Resultantly, the appeals stand disposed of with the following directions:—

i. The advertisement dated 29th July, 2010, issued by respondent No. 4 and all the consequential proceedings conducted in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed for being violative of Articles 14 and 16 and judicial precedents of this Court.

ii. All the appointments made in furtherance of the direction of the High Court dated 12th September, 2018, with respect to the subject posts are quashed.

iii. The respondent-State shall issue a fresh advertisement, compliant with the constitutional mandate and in accordance with the extant Rules and the observations made hereinabove. Thereafter, the recruitment process shall be re-conducted in accordance with law for the subject posts.

iv. In the interest of justice, we direct that the fresh notification shall be issued in terms of our direction (supra) within six months from today and will specifically provide suitable age relaxation in order to accommodate all such aspirants, who would have in the supervening period and during the pendency of the present litigation crossed the age limit for selection on the subject posts.”

The  mandate  of  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court,  which quashed all the appointments in furtherance of order and direction of the High Court dated 12th September, 2018, is applicable in this case also, as the petitioner was appointed pursuant to same Advertisement No.01/2010 dated 29.07.2010, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu and also in consideration of order dated 02.05.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016 and other Analogues cases. This particular order was also the subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, all appointments made pursuant to order dated 02.05.2017 arising out of W.P.(S) No.2485 of 2016 and other Analogues cases, including that of the petitioner were quashed.

In view of the aforesaid observation, no relief can be granted to this petitioner in the instant writ petition.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.