Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Harihar Ram And Anr on 24 August, 2015
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh, P.P. Bhatt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
I.A. No. 4515 of 2014
WITH
I.A. No. 4517 of 2014
WITH
L.P.A. No. 321 of 2014
----
The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Palamau, Officiating at Police Headquarter, PO & PS Daltonganj, Distt.
Palamau. . ..Appellant
Versus
1. Harihar Ram, S/o Sri Jawahar Ram, R/o- Village Chechariya, PO Atoula, PS
Meral, Distt. Garhwa ..Respondent
2. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, PO, PS & Distt. Garhwa
...Proforma Respondent
----
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT.
...
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, JC to AAG
For the Respondent : None
----
Order No.06/Dated:24th August, 2015
Per Virender Singh, C.J.
I.A. No. 4515 of 2014
1. Appellant-State, being aggrieved of the order dated 14.05.2013, passed in W.P.(S) No. 3572 of 2012, has preferred accompanied appeal being L.P.A. No. 321 of 2014, in which, there is delay of 655 days', condonation thereof is sought through the medium of I.A. No. 4515 of 2014, in which, notice was issued to the respondent-writ petitioner.
2. In terms of the noting of the Registry, it is a case of deemed service qua respondent-writ petitioner. We thus take up the instant application.
3. Under normal circumstances, we would have not condoned the aforesaid huge delay in filing the accompanied appeal but for the fact that the issue cropped up in the main appeal is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 27.06.2014, handed down in L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 (with connected L.P.As). Viewed thus, we hereby condone the aforesaid delay.
4. I.A. No. 4515 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly. 2 L.P.A. No. 321 of 2014
5. Since it is a case of deemed service qua respondent- writ petitioner, we take up the main appeal also.
6. Heard learned State counsel, gone through the impugned judgment and the relevant records.
7. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-writ petitioner (for short 'petitioner' only) sought direction upon the appellant-State to appoint him on the post of police driver in the district of Palamau as he had passed all tests for the said purpose and qualified for the said post. Learned counsel submits that may be the petitioner had passed all tests but he is declared as ineligible candidate for the reason that he had applied for the post of constable driver for two districts, whereas it was made clear in the advertisement that the applicant/ candidate should not apply for more than one district.
8. Learned counsel submits that said issue had cropped up before the learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 and other similarly situated Letters Patent Appeals, in which, ultimately learned Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge observing that the candidate, who applies for more than one district, was not eligible.
9. Learned counsel submits that direction given to the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa-cum-Chairman, Palamau Range, Driver Police Selection Board to consider the case of the petitioner, in terms of earlier decision of the Court rendered in the cases of Mithilesh Tiwari (W.P.S. No. 1658 of 2011) and Md. Kudus Ansari (W.P.S. No. 3594 of 2012) will now not sustain as these judgments have already been set aside in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal(s).
10. We are in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant State as in view of the judgment, handed down in 3 L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 (with connected L.P.As), the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
11. Ordered accordingly.
I.A. No. 4517 of 2014
12. Consequently, I.A. No. 4517 of 2014 also stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh, C.J.) (P.P. Bhatt, J.) APK/S.B./LAK