Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 975 (JHR)

Shyamal Kumar Ghosal v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-09-22

TAPEN SEN

body2004
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner prays for an appropriate order directing the respondents to take steps as per the order dated 10.11.1999 passed by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 7963 of 1998 in so far as it relates to selection and appointment of eligible candidates including the petitioner to the sanctioned and vacant posts of Typist/ Stenographer-cum-Assistant in the Godda Collectorate and other sub- ordinate depart- mental offices. It is relevant to note that CWJC No. 7963 of 1998 was disposed off on 10.11.1999 with a specific direction, the relevant portion whereof at pages 40 reads as follows:-- "For the reason aforesaid, I remit the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to fill up the post notified/advertised in pursuance of advertisement No. 05-19/94, dated 1st November, 1994 in accordance with rule/guideline as was existing on the said date (1st November, 1994), out of those applied in pursuance of such advertisement. The process of selection be completed and the posts be filled up on an early date, but not later than a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that the posts so advertised, cannot be filled up in pursuance of subsequent advertisement dated 26th January, 1999 contained in Annexure-5 without canceling the earlier advertisement. The Writ Petition stands disposed off with the aforesaid observations and directions. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. A.K. Choudhary, the counsel for the BPSC and learned AAG-II" (Italics by this Court) 3. Upon perusal of the aforementioned order it is evident that this Court remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to fill up posts which were advertised by Advertisement No. 05-19/94, dated 1st November, 1994 in accordance with the rules out of those persons who have applied pursuant to such advertisement the order which has been quoted above is Annexure- 5 of this Writ Petition. 4. It appears that on 14.7.2000 the Deputy Commissioner wrote a letter to the petitioner vide Annexure-7 and the said letter was addressed to another persons also. 4. It appears that on 14.7.2000 the Deputy Commissioner wrote a letter to the petitioner vide Annexure-7 and the said letter was addressed to another persons also. While referring to the aforementioned order passed in CWJC No. 7963 of 1998, the Deputy Commissioner indicated that it was necessary to find out as to whether the petitioner had actually applied pursuant to that advertisement and whether it was within the time fixed in the said advertisement and whether, after filling up the said form, he had submitted the same in the District Employment Exchange or not? This letter, therefore, is an evidence to show that the respondents had initiated action for purposes of complying with the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 7963 of 1998. Although the petitioner has annexed a copy of this letter as Annexure-7 but the statement contained in relation to Annexure-7 at paragraph-22, does not even whisper about the actual contents of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner. On the contrary, in paragraph-22, attempts have been made to give impression to this Court that a meeting of District Establishment Committee was to be held on 17.7.2000 when the application of the petitioner was to be considered. This statement is obviously incorrect meant to mislead this Court because only a sentence has been inserted at the bottom of that paragraph to the effect that "the petitioner was asked to provide certain information regarding his application". This is not the actual content of the letter dated 14.7.2000, as contained in Annexure-7. 5. That apart, it does not appear from the Writ Petition that pursuant to the aforementioned direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, the petitioner satisfied his queries although the last paragraph of that letter made it specific that photocopy of the application was to be submitted by 16.7.2000 so that a decision could be taken in the meeting of the Establishment Committee. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda made the answer to the question formed him and the submission of the photo-copy of the application as conditions precedent for considering the case of the petitioner in the next meeting of the Establishment Committee. It nowhere gave an impression that the petitioners case would be considered even if he did not satisfy the requirements specifically spelt out in the latter. 6. It nowhere gave an impression that the petitioners case would be considered even if he did not satisfy the requirements specifically spelt out in the latter. 6. Paragraph-22 therefore, is a crucial paragraph but the manner in which it has been stated clearly goes to show that the petitioner has deliberately attempted to confuse and mislead this Court without giving any explanation as to whether there was compliance of the specific directions of the Deputy Commissioner made on 14.7.2000 vide Annexure-7, In that view of the matter, it is held that this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived having no merits and it suffers from suppression of facts inasmuch as the statement made in paragraph-22 amounts to misleading this Court. 7. This Writ Petition is, therefore, frivolous. It is, accordingly, dismissed.