Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... vs Vinay Kumar on 22 January, 2015
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh, Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 60 of 2014
---
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
2. Director, General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jhrkhand
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jhrkhand
4. Deputy Commissioner- cum- Chairman, District Compassionate Committee, Pakur, P.O. Pakur P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur
5. Superintendent of Police, Pakur, P.O. Pakur P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur --- --- --- Appellants Versus Vinay Kumar -- -- -- Respondent
---
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
For the Appellant: Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Advocate General & Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, JC to AG For the Respondents: Dr. S. N. Pathak, Sr. Advocate,Mr. Birju Thakur, Advocate
---
nd Order No. 13: Dated 22 January 2015 Per Virender Singh, C.J.:
--
Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned Advocate General. and Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned Senior Advocate at length. We have also perused the impugned judgment and the Writ Court Record.
2. State being aggrieved of the judgment / order dated 13.12.2013 handed down by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2608 of 2013 whereby directing the State to consider the case of the respondent-writ petitioner for appointment on Class-III post, is before us through the medium of the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which is at admission stage. However, learned counsel for both the sides agree for disposal of the instant appeal at admission stage itself.
Hence, admitted and taken on board for its final consideration.
3. Mother of the respondent-writ petitioner (for short 'petitioner') made a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Pakur praying for compassionate appointment of her son, the petitioner herein, on Class-III post in 2. lieu of death of the father of the petitioner who died in harness while employed as Havildar (Head Constable) with the police. His case was duly considered by the then constituted committee along with other candidates, but the committee subsequently recommended his case for Class-IV post instead of Class-III post, as at that stage, he was not having the typing certificate. He accepted the said compassionate appointment. Mother of the petitioner subsequently knocked at the door of this Court through the medium of writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3272/2011 which was disposed of on 13.09.2011 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur to decide the claim of the petitioner along with other similarly situated candidates namely, Shakti Suman, Aditya Abhishek and Anuja Pandey as all the aforesaid candidates were also not having the typing certificate, still they were appointed on Class-III post, subject to production of typing certificate at the subsequent stage. Pursuant to the direction of the Writ Court, the case of the petitioner was considered and the committee also recommended his case for his appointment on Class-III post. However, the said recommendation did not find favour with the I.G. Headquarter who rejected his case vide order dated 17.01.2012, challenge to which was thrown by the petitioner in his subsequent writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2608/2013, which now stands allowed vide the impugned judgment.
4. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Advocate General, submitted that once the petitioner had accepted his appointment on Class-IV post pursuant to the decision taken by the then constituted Committee, he could not be given appointment on Class-III post in terms of the Resolution dated 05.10.1991. According to the learned Advocate General, this primarily was the reason, I.G. did not recommend the case of the petitioner despite being recommended by the Committee. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant extracts from the said Circular where a bar has been created in such like situation. Learned Advocate General submitted that it is after the case of the petitioner was rejected by the I.G., the matter was 3. once again placed before the same Committee which had earlier recommended the case of the petitioner and once again re-considered and rejected in terms of the aforesaid Resolution dated 05.10.1991. According to the learned Advocate General, it is for this reason, the petitioner during the pendency of the main lis moved an interlocutory application for placing on record the said order passed by the Committee by throwing challenge to the same and considered by the Writ Court also.
5. Mr. S.N. Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, however vehemently repudiates the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate General and supports the impugned judgment, stating that may be the petitioner had accepted Class-IV appointment at a particular point of time on account of dire need for employment, he at that stage, did know that similarly situated other candidates who were also not having the typing certificate with them, were considered for appointment on class-III post by the same constituted Committee and this constrained the petitioner to knock at the door of the Writ Court through WPS No. 3272/2011.
6. Mr. Pathak submitted that perusal of the order dated 13.09.2011 passed in the aforesaid writ petition depicts as to how the case of the petitioner was singled out for not granting him appointment on the Class-III post and ultimately, learned Writ Court directed the respondent-state (Appellant) to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on Class-III post which aspect was considered by the Committee once again and recommended also for Class-III post.
7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that may be the petitioner at one time had accepted the Class-IV post, but that fact, by itself, would not snatch the right of the petitioner when other similarly situated persons were duly considered favourably for appointment on Class-III post. It is in this factual background, the Learned Writ Court directed the appellant-State to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on Class-III post.
6. After considering the present case on its peculiar facts, as already detailed 4. in the impugned judgment itself, we do not find any reason much less good reason to disturb the view taken by the learned Writ Court.
7. Resultantly, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
8. The State-Appellant shall accord consideration to the candidature of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two weeks only from today as it has already been delayed considerably.
( Virender Singh, C.J.) (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/Kamlesh