State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Bijay Kumar & Ors

1. Respondents herein were appointed on ad hoc basis in Frozen Semen Bank Project as Technical Assistants in the Department of Animal Husbandry of the Government of Bihar. The said appointments were made by the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Ranchi.

2. In the year 1996, a scam known as Fodder Scam came to light and all unauthorized appointments were declared illegal by the State, inter alia, on the premise :

4. An interlocutory application was filed for extension of time to comply with the said order and by an order dated 2.12.2003, three months time was granted for constitution of the Committee. It was clarified that directions by this Court were in relation to the appellants in the said appeals. Another writ petition, however, was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand which came into being in November 2000 by Bijay Kumar and others. The said writ petition was also dismissed by an order dated 6.2.2004. Special Leave Petitions were also filed thereagainst and by a judgment and order dated 10.4.2006, a Bench of this Court directed :

The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

(4)The advertisement shall specify the last date with which the candidate concerned shall apply for consideration including thereon proof that the candidate had served with the Respondents. (5) The selection shall be made by the Selection Committee only against the available vacancies. Preference shall be given to those who have longer tenure of service over those who have shorter tenure of service, other things being equal. (6) All other conditions in the order dated 23.7.2003 shall be operative as far as the procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee to be set up pursuant to this order is concerned. (7) This shall be a one time exercise. No further application shall be entertained by such ad hoc employees. This fact should also be mentioned in the advertisement. (Emphasis supplied)

Indisputably, Respondents were not parties to the said orders. No benefit thereof, thus, could be extended in their favour. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, could not have issued the aforementioned directions.

Thousands of persons have acquired similar or higher qualifications. They have got their names registered in the employment exchanges. The job opportunities in a specialized field being limited, those who are now entitled to be considered, may not be considered at all, if the order of the High Court is allowed to operate.

14. Constitutional guarantee of equality as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India must be protected. While passing one order or the other, we should not forget the interest of those who are not before us. Citizens have human right of development and offer of appointment on such posts should be directed to be made only on merit. Only because some persons had approached this Court and obtained an order, the same should not be extended to others to which they are not otherwise entitled to, namely, weightage in service over the new applicants.

15. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.