- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding upon the respondents to publish the result of the selected candidates in the examination pursuant to advertisement issued by the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide Advertisement No. OC -01/04, issued under the signature of Assistant Employment Officer, Sub -Regional Employment Exchange, Dumka for appointment on the sanctioned vacant post of 25 Laboratory Technicians (Frozen Semen) in the district of Dumka vide advertisement no. Su -J.S.B. -900 (labour -5) for which examination was held on 5.10.2004 and result! panel has been prepared and forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fishery, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for publication of result and further to quash the process of selection initiated by the respondents under Advertisement No. 02/Secretariate Animal Husbandry/06, which is in contravention of the direction passed by this Court.
(2.) IT appears that initially an advertisement being Advertisement No. OC -01/04 was published in the year, 2004, pursuant to which the petitioners applied and according to their contention, they were selected and a panel was prepared. However, it was not given effect to and a second advertisement was issued for the same post in which the present petitioners were not allowed to appear because their experience was from private institutions whereas in the 2nd advertisement the eligibility criteria for the post of Laboratory Technicians was indicated as "one year Frozen Semen work experience" from Government Institution. The petitioners herein challenged Advertisement No. 01 Secretariat Animal Husbandry/2004 -05, published in the newspaper for appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician (Frozen Semen) so far as essential eligibility clause was concerned, whereby and where -under, while one year's experience in Frozen Semen work has been prescribed, it has been mentioned that such experience, except from Government Institution, will not be accepted as none of the private Institutions has been approved by the Animal Husbandry Department. This was the sole prayer made by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WP(S) No. 156 of 2005 and in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment dated 23.6.2006 it was recorded as under: "The only question requires for determination is whether the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Government of Jharkhand has jurisdiction to prescribe such condition, if the guidelines issued by the State do not prohibit experience from any other Institution." . In the aforesaid background, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by a well considered judgment directed as under: "12. In the present case, the respondents have failed to show the grounds for changing the eligibility criteria. They have also not explained the ground for not acting upon the merit list, as was prepared in pursuance of Advertisement No. O.C. -01/04 nor shown any ground for classification as made between persons having experience, as prescribed by guideline dated 22nd March, 1990. Learned counsel for the State also failed to explain as to why one year experience from a Government Institution was prescribed in the subsequent advertisement, if there is no Government Institution in the State imparting training in the subject concerned. Thus, the impugned classification made on the ground of experience between those who has experience from Government Institution and private Institution being against the guidelines and having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the same cannot be upheld. The criteria of experience from Government Institution, as made in Advertisement No. 01 Secretariat Animal Husbandry/2004 -05 is, accordingly, set aside. The respondents are directed to act as per guideline dated 22nd March, 1990, as was reflected in Advertisement No. O.C. -01/ 04 i.e. 'one year Frozen Semen work experience' and will reconsider the case of petitioners and other similarly situated persons, who are otherwise eligible for their appointment to the posts of Laboratory Assistant and will complete the process of selection within four months from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order."
(3.) IT appears that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15674 of 2006 was preferred by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, challenging the aforesaid order dated 23.6.2006, passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 156 of 2005 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, as withdrawn, gave liberty to the State (petitioner) to move the High Court limited to the only question that no candidate should obtain any appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. As per the liberty granted, the petitioners again moved this Court by filing I.A. No. 2927 of 2006, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench vide its order dated 27.10.2006 clarified that the State need not consider the appointment of the persons/candidates whose certificates are found to be forged or fabricated but in other respect the order passed by this Court on 23.6.2006 is intact.;