Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have interalia prayed for direction upon the respondents to forthwith appoint them in Class-IV posts from the date when similarly situated persons have been appointed alongwith all consequential benefits.
(2.) The brief facts as depicted in the writ application is that an advertisement being Advertisement No.2/2002 was published by respondent no.2 for filling up Class-IV posts in the Collectorate of the District of Hazaribagh and in pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioners submitted their applications. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and they were declared successful. The result was published in the daily newspaper of altogether 450 Candidates and the roll numbers of the candidates including the petitioners appeared in the said list. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh issued letter addressed to the District Malaria Officer, Hazaribagh recommending the names of the petitioners for their provisional appointments against Class-IV posts in the pay scale of Rs.2550- 3200 with a request that after verification the certificates, appointment letters may be issued. Thereafter, pursuant to letter dated 31.10.2005, the petitioners have been communicated the same with specific direction to District Malaria Officer, Hazaribagh to issue individual appointment letters. Thereafter, one letter has been issued on 16.02.2006 under signature of Secretary of Health Department addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh communicating therein that the post of Class-IV being State level posts, appointment of petitioners alongwith others will not be in accordance with law. But in terms of selection, the penal which has been prepared on said selection, out of the said similarly situated successful candidates to whom appointment letters have been issued to join in another department, their appointments have already been accepted as evident from Annexure-11 series to the writ petition. Unfortunately, the appointment of petitioner alongwith 11 successful candidates were not accepted even though joining of other successful candidates have already been accepted. Because of non-acceptance of joining of the petitioners, they approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2819 of 2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2007 on the basis of the direction of this Court dated 06.09.2006 in W.P.(S) No.3542 of 2006. In pursuance to the order dated 01.08.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.2819 of 2006, the petitioners submitted representations before the authorities concerned for consideration of their cases for being appointed to Class-IV posts. But when the grievance of the petitioners failed to evoke any response from the authorities, the petitioners preferred a contempt petition bearing Contempt Case (Civil) No.311 of 2009. In the contempt petition, this Court has been pleased to pass the order dated 13.09.2010 observing therein to verify the age of the petitioners as to whether they have crossed maximum age on the date of their appointments. It is also relevant during the pendency of the contempt petition, all the petitioners of the contempt petition except present petitioners and two others have been appointed. The reason for non-appointment of the petitioners is because of the crossing the maximum age on the date of appointments. It has also been averred that the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.3542 of 2006 and W.P.(S) No.4698 of 2006 have been appointed after giving them relaxation in age by the order of Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh as evident from Annexure-15 series to the writ petition. It has also been contended that from the panel the respondent authorities have given appointment on 31.10.2008 and even in the month of February, 2012. But the reasons best known to the respondent authorities, the petitioners have not been appointed, action of the respondent amounts to arbitrary exercise of power therefore, the action of the respondent authorities is discriminatory and unreasonable. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondents, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondent in not appointing the petitioners to Class-IV posts is smacks of arbitrary and illegal exercise of power because similarly placed candidates have been allowed to join the post even though they crossed the upper age limit at the time of appointment. Moreover, it is the inaction on the part of the respondents which has caused delay and the same is not attributable to the petitioners therefore the petitioners ought not to suffer for the latches and inaction of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the similarly placed candidates have been appointed after exempting their maximum age as provided under the rules but so far as petitioners are concerned the same parameters has not been adopted for the reason best known to the respondent authorities and the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no such rule that the life of panel will be for a certain specific period and it is a settled principles of law that in absence of any rule, it cannot be said that the life of the panel will be valid only for a certain period and this aspect of the matter is further corroborative from the fact that even from the said panel, appointments have been made in the month of February, 2012 and therefore, the ground taken in rejecting the claim of the petitioners is bereft of any cogent reasons. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions reported in (2007) 10 SCC 260 at para 21, (2007) 11 SCC 447 at Para 16, (2007) 4 SCC 54 para 17, (2013) 11 SCC 58 paras 13, 14 and 15.;