Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 692 (JHR)

Bipin Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-07

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter, contained in Memo No. 7030 dated 28th December, 2006, (Annexure-18), whereby the petitioner's request for appearing in the departmental typing examination to be conducted by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, has been rejected. 2. It has been stated that though the petitioner is a typist, working under the directorate and is a secretarial staff, the respondents arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that the petitioner is a typist of regional office. It has been stated that as far back as in the year 1989, the petitioner's services were absorbed on the post of typist in directorate by the order of the then Director, Indigenous Medicine, by Memo No. 605 dated 31st July, 1989 and since then the petitioner has been continuing as such. It has been stated that on the same ground, the candidature of Nathuni Prasad Vishwakarma and Mahanand Sharma, working as typist in the Finance Department, was rejected, but subsequently, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, by its letter dated 4th October, 2006 had allowed the aforesaid two persons to appear in the departmental typing examination. However, the petitioner has been discriminated against and his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The factual statements almost have been admitted, except the status of the petitioner's regularisation. It has been stated that the dl no power to absorb or appoint any person against Class-III post. With regard to the petitioner's grievance of discrimination as against the aforesaid candidates, it has been stated that the said candidates have been continuing for a long time. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said ground taken by the respondents is wholly baseless and without any substance. The Health Department, Government of Bihar, by its Memo No. 555 dated 25th May, 1982 (Annexure-20) has declared that the Director, Indigenous Medicine is the appointing-cum-controlling authority as also the drawing and disbursing authority. No contrary document has been brought on record in support of the petitioner's allegation; rather the respondents have admitted the document as a genuine. The Health Department, Government of Bihar, by its Memo No. 555 dated 25th May, 1982 (Annexure-20) has declared that the Director, Indigenous Medicine is the appointing-cum-controlling authority as also the drawing and disbursing authority. No contrary document has been brought on record in support of the petitioner's allegation; rather the respondents have admitted the document as a genuine. So far as the other ground is concerned, the petitioner has been regularized as far back as in the year 1989 and he has been working since thereafter for about more than seventeen years. 5. The said submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are supported by the documents on record. I, therefore, find .substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been arbitrarily single out and discriminated against by rejecting his request for allowing him to appear in the typing examination of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand I find no valid ground to uphold the said order dated 28th December, 2006 (Annexure-18). 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28th December, 2006 is quashed. 7. In view thereof, the respondents shall not put any impediment to the petitioner preventing him from appearing in the said departmental typing examination. LA. No. 1894 of 2008: 8. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to allow him to appear in the forthcoming departmental typing ex- amination. 9. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, no separate order is required to be passed in this application. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is disposed of in the same terms.