D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) Petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue appointment letters in favour of the petitioners as per the recommendations made vide letter No. 52 dated 24.1.2007 (Annexure 10), issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (respondent No. 6), in pursuance to the Government Letter No. 1096 dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure 8) and the Government letter No. 49 dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure 9), issued by the Secretary, Science and Technology Department, Jharkhand (respondent No. 4).
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of the appointment in pursuance to the said letters and the policy decisions taken, therein, have wrongly been given to the persons junior to the petitioners despite the fact that the petitioners were duly selected in the written test and also in the interview and, thus, the petitioners have been discriminated. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent -State. Making reference to an earlier order dated 7.1.2002 of this Court passed in W.P. (S) No. 111 of 2002, learned Counsel for the respondents explains that in the aforesaid order, this Court had directed that so far as the regular appointment is concerned, the petitioners, therein, may also apply when appropriate Class IV posts are filled up and in such case, if one or the other petitioner apply and is/are eligible, he shall be given preference and appropriate age relaxation as per the guidelines issued by the State vide Resolution dated 18.6.1993 should be given. It was also directed that it would be open to the petitioners in the writ application to bring to the notice of the authorities concerned that they had worked for 240 days in a Calendar year. Learned Counsel explains that in compliance to the aforesaid order, an advertisement for appointment to Class IV posts in the district of Dhanbad was made, wherein, at Para 8 of their advertisement, it was stipulated that the weightage should be given to such candidates who have worked for 240 days prior to 1.8.2005. Thereafter, the matter regarding selection and appointment was performed by a Committee comprising of the Deputy Commissioner as its Chairman and the Deputy Development Commissioner, Additional Collector, District Welfare Officer. Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division and the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Dhanbad and a Resolution was taken by the Selection Committee at its meeting on 26.7.2006 and according to the Resolution and the recommendations of the Committee, all the appointments particularly of candidates from Serial Nos. 10 to 32 of the writ application, was made. It is further stated that the panel was prepared in the year 1992 and thereafter the panel was sent to the Director, B.I.T., Sindri with a request to make additions, therein, by entering the names of Ward Servants. However, no such additions were made since after the approval of the panel, which was once prepared by the District Collectorate. However, pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the Ward Servants a direction was given to include the names of the Ward Servants but in absence of guidelines and instructions from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, the names of the Ward Servants could not be included in the said panel of 1992.
(3.) NEVERTHELESS , pursuant to the directions in the Contempt Petition, vide Cont. Case (Civil) No. 508 of 2003 and in compliance, thereof, the instructions from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was received on 5.4.2001 and pursuant to the letter dated 8.2.2005, issued by the Science and Technology Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the names of the Ward Servants were included in the approved panel of the year 1992.;