Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 306 (JHR)

Shiv Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-04-21

N.N.TIWARI

body2005
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner with other similarly situated persons and send his name for the purpose of appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak after giving him the benefit of age relaxation as has been given to other similarly situated persons. It has been stated that the persons, similarly, situated, and even two persons junior to him have been given promotion to the post of Panchayat Sewak. 2. The petitioners case is that in a meeting of Executive Committee held on 05.10.1988 for consideration of the appointment on the post of Dalpati, the petitioners name was recommended and accordingly he was appointed as Dalpati at Baraini Panchayat of District Chatra. His appointment was approved by the District Panchayati Raj Officer by memo No. 78 Mu. Dated 16.06.1988 (Annexure-2). The petitioner claims that since thereafter he has been continuously serving as Dalpati and getting monthly allowance according to the prescribed rules. He has undergone the compulsory training prescribed for Dalpatis and successfully completed the same. In the year 1995, the respondent No. 5 informed the petitioner that original certificates are required for the purpose of his appointment on the sanctioned post of Panchayat Sewaks. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his certificates and other required documents. However, at that time, he could not be appointed because his name was below in the seniority list of Dalpatis. In the year 2000, the respondent No. 9 was informed that two villagers of Bairani and Koladih Panchayats, namely, Kamaldeo Singh and Arjun Sao respectively have complained against the petitioners appointment as Dalpati alleging that at the time of the appointment, the petitionerss father was the mukhki of the panchayat and who constituted the executive committee. Accordingly, the petitioner was given a show cause notice. The petitioner filed his reply denying the allegations. The matter was inquired into and the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra found that the appointment was approved long back in the year 1988 and on such allegation his services cannot be terminated after several years. The matter was, thus, closed by order dated 21.07.2000 giving a liberty to the aggrieved party to agitate the matter before any appropriate authority. The said matter was, thereafter, never agitated. The matter was, thus, closed by order dated 21.07.2000 giving a liberty to the aggrieved party to agitate the matter before any appropriate authority. The said matter was, thereafter, never agitated. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the seniority list of Dalpatis, the name of the petitioner stands at Sl. No. 32 and he should have been given the age relaxation and other concessions in accordance with the Government circular dated 07.05.2002 for the purpose of appointment to the post of Panchyat Sewaks, but the same has not been done on the plea of some complaint concerning his appointment to the post of Dalpati pendency of the matter before some higher authority. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of age relaxation as some allegation against him regarding his appointment to the post of Dalpati is pending before the higher authority. No description, regarding the complaint or the authority examining the matter, has been given. On the said vague and sketchy counter affidavit, withholding of the recommendation of the petitioners name has been sought to be justified. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondents have arbitrarily discriminated the petitioner and without any sufficient reason, have denied the equal treatment to him. Learned Counsel submitted that the allegation against his first appointment to the post of Dalpati was inquired into at different levels and ultimately the matter was finally closed by the Deputy Commissioner, as far back as in the year 2000. Liberty was given to the concerned persons to raise grievances against the petitioners first appointment before an appropriate authority. Neither the order of the deputy Commissioner was challenged nor any appropriate step was taken challenging the petitioners appointment as Dalpati. According to him after lapse of several years a frivolous plea is being taken for denying his valuable legal rights and not sending his name for appointment to the post of Panchayat Sewak. 5. Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala, learned G.P. III appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that although no exact particulars have been furnished, but some matter is still pending before the higher authority. However, the learned Counsel has not denied that the matter was inquired into and the same was dropped in the year 2000 by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. 5. Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala, learned G.P. III appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that although no exact particulars have been furnished, but some matter is still pending before the higher authority. However, the learned Counsel has not denied that the matter was inquired into and the same was dropped in the year 2000 by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the material placed on record, I find that without any reasonable cause, the petitioner has been unnecessarily discriminated against and he has been arbitrarily and illegally deprived of his valuable right. There is no reason as to why the petitioner will not be given the same treatment as has been given to other similarly situated persons until his appointment as Dalpati is not cancelled/ terminated by any competent authority or otherwise comes to an end. The respondents cannot deny equal treatment to the petitioner on such flimsy ground and cannot deny recommendation of his case with the relaxation of age for the purpose of appointment to the post of Panchyat Sewak, as has been done in the cases of other similarly situated candidates. This writ application is, thus, allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner along with other similarly situated persons, giving the benefit of age relaxation or any other benefits as has been given to other Dalpatis similarly circumstanced. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.