Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 2 February, 2023
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Subhash Chand
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.476 of 2014
------
Sunil Kumar Pandey, s/o- Late Awadh Pandey, R/o village-Tundi, PO-
Lohandi, PS- Chauparan, Dist.-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Home, Project Bhawan, PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi.
2. Director General of Police, At PO + PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur, PO + PS +
Dist.-Hazaribagh.
4. Deputy General of Police (Personnel), At PO+ PS + Dist.-Ranchi.
5. Superintendent of Police, At PO+ PS + Dist.-Koderma.
6. Superintendent of Police, At PO+ PS + Dist.-Giridih.
7. District Superintendent of Education, At PO+ PS + Dist.-Hazaribagh
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------
For the Appellant : Ms. Isha Khanna, Advocate
: Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II
: Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP-II
------
ORAL JUDGMENT
16/Dated: 02.02.2023 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5499 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 28.01.2013, by which, the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service, has been refused to be interfered with.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ 2 petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
It is the case of the writ petitioner that an Advertisement No.01/2010 dated 25.03.2010 was floated in the newspaper regarding recruitment to the post of Constable in Police in the State of Jharkhand. As per the Advertisement No. 01/2010, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Constable was 7th Pass from the educational institution recognized by the State Government within the State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner was selected and appointed on the said post on the basis of School Leaving Certificate obtained from Amoli Apurwa High School at Mangandh, Chauparan, Hazaribagh and residential certificate produced by him. The said certificate shows that the writ petitioner had entered the said school on 23rd March, 1998 and left the school on 9th March, 1999, while, he was studying in Class-VIII which indicates that he had passed Class-VII Exam from the said school. The writ petitioner was served with the show-cause notice vide dated 31st December, 2012 to reply as to why he should not be terminated from service as his educational certificate was obtained from the school which was not recognized by the State Government, as per the terms of the Advertisement and relevant provisions of the Police Manual. The writ petitioner seems to have submitted his reply, which however could not give satisfactory response as the school itself was recognized by the State Government upon the recommendation of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in the sessions 2008-2009 vide letter dated 22nd November, 2008 issued by 3 the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Therefore, the writ petitioner's service has been terminated vide Memo No.179 dated 28.01.2013.
The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No.179 dated 28.01.2013, appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the services of the writ petitioner has been dismissed with immediate effect, has filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5499 of 2013. But, the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2014, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.
3. The writ petitioner has taken the ground before the learned Single Judge that the similar issue on the fact, writ petition has been filed against the order of termination which was culminated into letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 which was disposed of on 07.07.2014 by giving an opportunity to the appellant of the said case to make representation before the concerned respondent along with the certificate of Class VIII and in turn thereof, the concerned respondent has been directed to consider the representation of the appellant and after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant pass fresh order in accordance with law.
4. According to the writ petitioner, the aforesaid order dated 07.07.2014 passed in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 has been brought to the notice of the writ Court along with the fact that the appellant of L.P.A. No.419 of 2013, namely, Nirmal Kumar Tiwary has already been appointed but without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect 4 of the matter, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and as such, the instant intra-court appeal has been filed but the instant appeal (LPA No.476 of 2014) has been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2018 by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court.
5. The further fact transpires that the appellant has preferred civil review being Civil Review No.69 of 2021 for review of the order dated 20.11.2018 passed in L.P.A. No.476 of 2014 on the ground that the order passed by the another coordinate Division Bench of this Court on 07.07.2014 in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 has not been considered which is exactly on similar facts and circumstances.
A coordinate Division Bench of this Court has allowed the review vide order dated 22.11.2022 by restoring the L.P.A. No.476 of 2014 to its original file and thereby the appeal has been listed today for hearing.
6. Ms. Isha Khanna, assisted by Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by referring to the order dated 22.11.2022 passed in Civil Review No.69 of 2021 that it has been admitted that the fact of L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 is exactly similar to that of the fact of instant appeal, as would appear from the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 22.11.2022 passed in Civil Review No.69 of 2021 (Sunil Kumar Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein, the reference of the aforesaid admission made on behalf of the State represented by the learned Advocate General, is required to be referred which reads as under:- 5
"11. This Court put a specific query that why even in spite of specific direction passed by this Court, no para-wise reply has been filed. Further, why specific stand has not been taken as to whether the order passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 dated 07.07.2014, appended as Annexure-9 to the memorandum of appeal has not been dealt with taking a view as to whether the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 is squarely covering the case of the writ petitioner or is different on fact.
12. The matter was taken over by the learned Advocate General to assist this Court on the aforesaid query.
13. The learned Advocate General has considered Annexure-9, as appended to L.P.A. No.476 of 2014 and fair enough to submit that after going through the factual aspect involved in this case as also the fact as narrated in the order passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 are exactly similar."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, therefore, 6 submits that since it is now admitted on behalf of the State that the fact involved in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 is exactly similar to that of L.P.A. No.476 of 2014, therefore, the order of termination is required to be interfered with by quashing and setting it aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P.-II appearing for the State of Jharkhand has fairly submitted that he has nothing to argue in view of the stand of the State as has been recorded on the basis of the submission made by the learned Advocate General of the State, as reflected in paragraph-13 of the order dated 22.11.2022 passed in Civil Review No.69 of 2021.
9. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material available on record as also considering the admission made on behalf of the State by the learned Advocate General who after taking into consideration Annexure-9 as appended to L.P.A. No.476 of 2014, i.e., the order dated 07.07.2014 passed in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 has admitted therein that the facts as narrated in the order passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 are exactly similar.
10. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the instant letters patent appeal is also fit to be disposed of by quashing and setting aside the order of termination.
11. Accordingly, the order of termination dated 28.01.2013 issued vide memo no.179, is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 7
13. Since the respondents had already taken decision with respect to the order passed in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 (Nirmal Kumar Tiwary Vs. State of Jharkhand), where the said Nirmal Kumar Tiwary was having VIIIth Class pass qualification and has already reinstated in service and here in the instant case, the writ petitioner-appellant is having intermediate pass qualification and as such, he is also to be given similar treatment.
14. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P.-II appearing for the State has submitted that here in the instant case also, the writ petitioner- appellant may be given liberty to file representation before the authority concerned along with the certificate of intermediate for its consideration on the end of the respondents.
15. But, we are of the view that since the learned Advocate General has accepted that the case of the writ petitioner is exactly similar to that of case of appellant in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013, wherein, the coordinate Division Bench of this Court has passed the order, after quashing and setting aside the order of termination, giving liberty to the appellant of the aforesaid appeal to file representation along with the certificate for its consideration and in pursuant thereto, the respondent has considered the claim of the appellant of the said appeal and has appointed him to the post.
16. Hence, the submission which has been made on behalf of the State that the writ petitioner-appellant of the present case may also be given liberty to file representation before the authority concerned for taking decision and if it will be allowed, the same will cause 8 undue delay as also not proper for the reason that on the similar issue, the decision has already been taken by appointing the appellant of L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 considering the higher qualification of having Class VIII, while herein, the writ petitioner of the instant case is having with the qualification of intermediate, therefore, it would be unjust and improper to direct the writ petitioner to again approach before the authority to take decision as had been taken in the light of the order passed in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 on 07.07.2014 by reinstating the appellant of the said L.P.A. No.419 of 2013.
17. The State since has admitted that the case of the writ petitioner-appellant is exactly similar to that of case of appellant of L.P.A. No.419 of 2013, rather, it has been submitted that the case of the writ petitioner is even on better footing on the basis of the higher qualification having been obtained by the writ petitioner of the present case, therefore, it is not proper on the part of the State to raise the issue to grant liberty to the writ petitioner to again approach before the respondents for taking decision on their end.
18. Accordingly, the aforesaid submission is hereby rejected.
19. In the result, the writ petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since there is no laches on the part of the appellant, therefore, the back- wages and consequential benefits may also be directed to be paid.
21. However, objection to that effect has been made on behalf of 9 learned counsel appearing for the State.
22. This Court, on appreciation of the submission on this regard is of the view that it would be in the ends of justice, if such liberty will be granted to the writ petitioner to raise the issue before the concerned respondents for taking decision on their end in accordance with law.
23. Accordingly, the writ petitioner-appellant is at liberty to make due representation before the competent authority of the State for making claim of the back-wages along with other consequential benefits.
24. If such claim will be made, the competent authority of the State will take decision in accordance with law preferably within the period of three months' from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.) A.F.R Rohit/-