Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19888-DB ) L.P.A. NO. 08 OF 2025 1 L.P.A. No. 08 of 2025 Anubhab Kumar Maji, S/o Nirmal Kumar Maji, R/o Vill- Mathura, P.O.- Manihari, P.S.- Bindapathar, Dist.- Jamtara, Jharkhand-815355. ... Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara-cum-District Programme Coordinator (District Rural Development Agency), Jamtara, P.O. & P.S.- Jamtara, Dist.- Jamtara. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Additional District Programme Coordinator (District Rural Development Agency), Jamtara, P.O. & P.S.- Jamtara, Dist.- Jamtara. 5. Rahul Kumar Gupta, S/o Sri Ramesh Prasad Gupta, R/o S.P. College Road, Rasikpur, Near Central Bank of India, P.O.+P.S.+Dist.-Dumka … Respondents ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ---- For the Appellant : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv. For the State : AC to SC(L&C)-I For the Resp. : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. ---- Dated : 15/07/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AC to S.C.(L&C)-I and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2052 of 2024 by virtue of which, the appellant has been aggrieved as he has been ousted from the zone of consideration in the appointment process. 3. The facts enumerated in the writ application is that an advertisement was published from the Office of the District Rural Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19888-DB ) L.P.A. NO. 08 OF 2025 2 Development Agency, Jamtara for implementation of MNREGA Scheme vide Advertisement No. 01/2021-22 for different posts. The writ petitioner (respondent no. 5 herein) had applied in the district of Deoghar for the post of Technical Assistant (equivalent to Assistant Engineer), but the said application being defective, a request was made by the writ petitioner to cancel the application. The writ petitioner had also applied in the district of Pakur for the post of Technical Assistant (equivalent to Assistant Engineer) and for rectification and objection, a general notice had been issued vide Memo No. 544 dated 08-11-2023. The writ petitioner had also withdrawn his claim in the district of Pakur on 10-11-2023. The writ petitioner, who had applied for the district of Jamtara was selected and an appointment letter was issued to him vide Memo No. 181 dated 21.02.2024 by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Jamtara, wherein joining was directed to be given on 29.02.2024. Despite issuance of the appointment letter and despite approaching the concerned authorities for joining of the writ petitioner, the same was not accepted which constrained the writ petitioner to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance in W.P.(S) No. 2052/2024 which was allowed vide order dated 29.08.2024 and the concerned respondent was directed to accept the joining of the writ petitioner. The present appellant on account of the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2052/2024 has been ousted from the zone of consideration for being appointed as Technical Assistant (equivalent to Assistant Engineer) and, therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by him. 4. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Technical Assistant (equivalent to Assistant Engineer) in the district of Deoghar and Pakur, apart from Jamtara where he was Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19888-DB ) L.P.A. NO. 08 OF 2025 3 declared successful which is in violation of Rule 19 of the Appointment Rules. The writ petitioner had conveniently suppressed such applications made and on a written complaint, it was confirmed that the writ petitioner had indeed applied for the post of Technical Assistant (equivalent to Assistant Engineer) in both Deoghar and Pakur. Condition 7 of the appointment letter issued to the writ petitioner clearly stipulates that in case of any false representation, the appointment is liable to be cancelled and the fraudulent act of the respondent No. 5, by giving false affidavit is a flagrant violation of the terms and conditions of the appointment as well as the Appointment Rules. An appointment made de hors the rules, is void ab-initio and in this context, reference has been made to the case of State of Odisha v. Sulekha Chandra Pradhan & Ors. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 482. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5/writ petitioner has submitted that no condition of appointment has been violated by the writ petitioner. He has submitted that the advertisement for the post of Technical Assistant (equivalent to Assistant Engineer) was issued on 07.09.2023 for the district of Deoghar and 04.09.2023 for the district of Pakur which was later to the date of filing of the affidavit stating in categorical terms of not applying in the other districts. It has been submitted that the appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 5 has not been challenged by the present appellant. 6. The resolution of the Rural Development Department dated 21.03.2017 has amended the Rules of Conditions of Service and Rule 12(iv) relates to Technical Assistant (equivalent to Assistant Engineer), wherein an aspirant can apply only in one district and an affidavit has to be filed in support of the same with a further stipulation that in case the affidavit is found to be false, the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19888-DB ) L.P.A. NO. 08 OF 2025 4 appointment shall automatically terminate. 7. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, submitted that the appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 5 herein was de hors the rules, has referred to the case of State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan & Ors. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 482 in which, it has been held as follows: “34. It is not in dispute that the appointment of all the applicants/respondents/teachers have been made directly by the respective Management without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/statute. It is a trite law that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio. Reference in this respect could be made to the judgments of this Court in Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal v. Geeta Bhaskar Pendse [Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal .v. Geeta Bhaskar Pendse, (1991) 3 SCC 246 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 900] , J&K Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan [J&K Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan, (1994) 2 SCC 630 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 723] , Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] and Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh [Union of India v. Raghuwar Pal Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 463 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 823] .” 8. The facts of the present case project an entirely different Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19888-DB ) L.P.A. NO. 08 OF 2025 5 scenario. The application made by the writ petitioner for appointment as a Technical Assistant (equivalent to Assistant Engineer) in Deoghar and Pakur were made on 07.09.2023 and 11.09.2023 respectively. If the affidavit stating about applying in one district would have been presented by the writ petitioner, the submission of the learned counsel would have invited optimism, but as is apparent, the affidavit was submitted by the writ petitioner on 05.09.2023 after he had applied in Jamtara district on 16.08.2023. The applications in the district of Deoghar and Pakur were post submission of the affidavit and the same cannot be said to be in violation of the rules mentioned above. There appears to be an added feature in the case of the writ petitioner regarding the withdrawal of his candidature in Deoghar and Pakur districts. The learned Single Judge has noticed all the vital aspects of the case while allowing the application. We do not find any reasons to differ with such findings and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 9. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (AMBUJ NATH, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 15th Day of July, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.