Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 298 (JHR)

Suman Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2002-03-06

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No. 1292 dated 5th August. 2000, whereby the Respondent No. 5 rejected the claim of petitioner for appointment as Constable. The petitioner has further challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 7. Nanhu Yadav being illegal and forged. 2. It appears that the petitioner applied in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/98 for appointment to the post of Constable and having not appointed moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2192/2000R. The aforesaid case with other cases was disposed of on 18th July. 2000 with liberty to petitioner to prefer representation before the Chairman of Selection committee, Singhbhum West who. in his turn, was directed to dispose of the representation. It was only thereafter, the Respondents rejected the claim of petitioner. 3. The respondent No. 5 who filed a counter-affidavit opposing the prayer of petitioner specifically stated that no person having lessor height than the petitioner was appointed. The height of petitioner was measured and found to be 176 cms. as was recorded in the Master chart wherein the petitioner put his signature. The candidates belonging to general category having no Home Guard certificate like petitioner have been appointed who had height upto 180,2 cms. However, nothing specific stated so far as appointment of Respondent No. 7 is concerned. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently affidavit has been filed on 27th June, 2001 enclosing a copy of letter No. 834 dated 6th April, 2001 written by S.P., West Singhbhum. Chaibasa to the Police D.I.G. (Personnel). Jharkhand, Ranch!. By the said letter, the report of Rail S.P.. Jamshedpur (Annexure-4) has been forwarded, wherein the name of Respondent No. 7, Nanhu Yadav has been shown to have been appointed on the basis of forged Home Guard Certificate. 5. On hearing the parties, as it appears that the petitioner has failed to make out his claim for appointment, this Court rejects his prayer for appointment to the post of constable in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/98. 6. So far as Respondent No. 7 is concerned, he refused to accept notice and thus the notice stood validly served on him. 7. 6. So far as Respondent No. 7 is concerned, he refused to accept notice and thus the notice stood validly served on him. 7. As it appears that the petitioner has prima/facie made put a case that the respondent No. 7 has been appointed on the basis of forged Home Guard Certificate, the case is remitted to the D.I.g. (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi. The petitioner will file a representation enclosing photo copy of letter No. 834 dated 6th April, 2001 and relevant extracts of the enclosures. The D.I.G. (Personnel). Jharkhand, Ranchi. in his turn, will enquire and if find that the appointment of respondent No. 7 is made on the basis of forged certificate will take appropriate steps after notice to him, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of representation, 8. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.