Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5125 of 2006 vide order dated 23.01.2013. The writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1 herein has been allowed and, therefore, the original respondents have preferred the present appeal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there was a need of Class IV employees in the State of Jharkhand in the year 2002, and, therefore, public advertisement was issued. The selection process was started through Selection Committee. The procedure adopted by the State was written test as well as physical test, which took quite longer time and ultimately a panel list of 676 candidates was finalized on 21.10.2005, out of which 308 candidates were recommended for appointment on Class IV posts. Out of this 308 recommended candidates, 22 candidates were returned by Kasturba Gandhi Girls High School district Hazaribag, mainly for the reason that those Class IV selected candidates were not having any technical knowledge of cooking and as it was a Girls High School those 22 candidates were male hence they were also returned. Therefore, further process of selection of 22 candidates was made and in the Scheduled Caste category the candidates who were at Serial No. 335, 351 and 385 were appointed, whereas the present respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) who was also a Scheduled Caste category candidate at Serial No. 370 in the select list was not selected. This has given birth to a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 5125 of 2006 preferred by the respondent No. 1 which is allowed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, letters patent appeal has been preferred. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that State has committed some mistake in appointment of a candidate who is at Serial No. 385. In fact, there are several candidates after Serial No. 308 who were knowing cooking, were also able to perform the duties as Class IV employee as a cooking labourer and there were certain female candidates also, but, a candidate at Serial No. 385 preferred one writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 4566 of 2008, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2008 and direction was given by this Court to consider his case and the State has hurriedly appointed him, therefore, the present respondent No. 1 who is at Serial No. 370 has filed the writ petition. Thus, the State has committed error in appointing a candidate at Serial No. 385, otherwise from Serial No. 309 onwards. There are good number of candidates who can be appointed at Kasturba Gandhi Girls High School at Hazaribag. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, now in the year 2008 new selection process has been started for Class IV employees and a final panel has also been prepared in the year 2010 and, therefore, nobody can be appointed from the old panel. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in giving a direction to this appellant -State to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) afresh, because the State has appointed Scheduled Caste category candidate who is at Serial No. 385, whereas petitioner is also a Scheduled Caste category candidate and in the select list he is at Serial No. 370. The respondent No. 1 also knows cooking and he is also very efficient to work as cooking labourer and he also knows to do some other technical work. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the direction given by the learned Single Judge may not be quashed and set aside in this letters patent appeal. The State is discriminating between the Scheduled Caste category candidates. A candidate at Serial No. 385 is appointed whereas a candidate at Serial No. 370 is moving from pillar to post, hence this letters patent appeal may not be entertained by this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) that the appellant -State has already given appointment to the original petitioner on provisional basis as Class IV employee vide order dated 31.10.2014.;