Skip to content


Shankar Mahto and Ors Vs. Personnel and Adminis Reform - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantShankar Mahto and Ors
RespondentPersonnel and Adminis Reform
Excerpt:
.....the advertisement shows that the selected candidates shall be required to look after the wild animals kept in the biological park, their up-keeping, rearing, their exhibition, cleanliness, security etc., for which the required experience, as stated in the said advertisement was that, the candidates must have at least three years working experience in up-keeping, exhibition and security of the wild animals. it was also stated in the advertisement that the daily wages employees of the bhagwan birsa biological park, working in the required field from long, shall be given due weightage for their work experience and they shall also be allowed relaxation in age.3. the petitioners applied for the said post, but their claims have been rejected and the rejection list has also been.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1269 of 2015 with I.A. No.2283 of 2016 1. Shankar Mahto 2. Jagat Prasad 3. Ramtahal Munda 4. (Deleted) 5. Jageshwar Singh 6. Arsad Ali 7. Amrit Mahto 8. Khalik Ansari 9. Sahajnath Mahto 10. Arsad Ansari 11. Ruplal Mahto 12. Manendra Sahu 13. Abuhasim Ansari 14. Alim Ansari 15. Dharmdeo Prasad 16. Lalit Kumar Mahto 17. Rajendra Mahto 18. Radheshyam Pahan 19. Ramsay Pahan 20. Imtiyaz Ansari 21. Ugeshwar Orawn 22. Mangalchandra Orawn 23. Babulal Thakur 24. Chandru Pahan 25. Mani Munda 26. (Deleted) 27. (Deleted) 28. Chhunnilal Mahto ..... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,Ranchi.

3. The Secretary, Forest & Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Ranchi.

5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Biodiversity Conservation & Chief Wildlife Warden, Ranchi.

6. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife, Ranchi.

7. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Ranchi.

8. The Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Director, Bhagwan Birsa Biological Prak, Ranchi.

9. The Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bhagwan Birsa Biological Prak, Ranchi. 10.The Range Officer, Bhagwan Birsa Biological Park, Ranchi. …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P. IV ----- 7/15.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent State. -2- 2. Petitioners, herein, are claiming that they were working on daily wages as 'Pashupalak-cum-Sweeper' in Bhagwan Birsa Biological Park since long and during their tenure, they have worked with full satisfaction to the Biological Park authorities. An advertisement No.1 of 2013-14 was published by the respondents, inviting applications for the sanctioned posts of 'Pashupalak-cum-Sweeper' from the interested candidates, as contained in Annexure–2 to the writ application. The advertisement shows that the selected candidates shall be required to look after the wild animals kept in the Biological Park, their up-keeping, rearing, their exhibition, cleanliness, security etc., for which the required experience, as stated in the said advertisement was that, the candidates must have at least three years working experience in up-keeping, exhibition and security of the wild animals. It was also stated in the advertisement that the daily wages employees of the Bhagwan Birsa Biological Park, working in the required field from long, shall be given due weightage for their work experience and they shall also be allowed relaxation in age.

3. The petitioners applied for the said post, but their claims have been rejected and the rejection list has also been published, as contained in Annexure–3 to the writ application, giving reasons for rejection of their candidature. It is stated the petitioners were not having the minimum three years experience in up keeping of the wild animals, rather they were engaged in other works, such as boat sailor, Chowkidar etc., but they were not engaged with the work of up-keeping of the wild animals, as such, they were not qualified for being appointed to the said post. Petitioners have brought on record, by way of example, one experience certificate issued by the respondent authorities of Bhagwan Birsa Biological Park, Ranchi, showing that the petitioners were engaged on daily wages in the park, in which it is specifically stated that the petitioner No.1 was engaged in boat sailing work in the lake of the park.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are working since long on daily wages in the biological park and one of them is working even from the year 1993, and all these petitioners are fully experienced even in up-keeping of the wild animals and the related works and such works were also taken from them. It has been submitted that the candidature of the petitioners have been wrongly rejected stating that the petitioners were not engaged in the work of up-keeping of the wild animals. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for quashing the rejection list as contained in Annexure–3 issued by the respondent authorities, whereby the candidature of the petitioners have been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer and has pointed out from the detailed supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities of the Bhagwan Birsa Biological Park, showing that the petitioners were engaged for selling the tickets for boating, driver, chowkidar, -3- gardener, carrier of animal feed from godown to animal enclosures, gate keeper, etc. It is stated in the said counter affidavit that actual work being done by these petitioners could not be called as up-keep of zoo animals and its rearing, because the nature of both the works are quite different to each other. It is specifically stated that in fact none of the petitioners have ever handled any wild animal in Bhagwan Birsa Biological Park or in any other zoo. In view of this specific statement, learned counsel for the State submitted that since the petitioners are not having the required experience in up-keeping of the wild animals, their candidature have been rightly rejected after due scrutiny.

6. The case of the petitioners is that the animal rearing works were also taken to them from time to time, but there is complete denial to this fact in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities of the Bhagwan Birsa Biological Park. It is rather specifically stated that in fact none of the petitioners have ever handled any wild animal in the park. In view of these contrary statements, this is a disputed question of fact whether the work of animal rearing was ever taken from the petitioners and this question cannot be decided in exercise of the powers in the writ jurisdiction.

7. In view of the fact that there is complete denial of the fact that the petitioners were ever engaged in up-keeping of the wild animals, the candidature of the petitioners have been rightly rejected upon due scrutiny vide rejection list, as contained in Annexure–3 to the writ application, giving specific reasons for rejection of the candidature of the each of the petitioners. In view of the specific stand in the counter affidavit, I do not find any illegality / irregularity in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners.

8. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

9. Consequently, the I.A. No.2283 of 2016 filed for amending the prayer in the writ application, to challenge the final merit list, also stands dismissed. (H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //