Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1401 (JHR)

Triloki Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-09

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2009
JUDGMENT This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the relief of certiorari to quash the letter dated 1.12.2005, Annexure-4 to the writ application, whereby, the petitioner was informed that he has claim for candidature for appointment on the post of Driver-Constable has come to an end for the reason that the petitioner has not reported at Police Centre, Hazaribagh till 25.10.05. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the respondent as the Driver-Constable at Hazaribagh for which he applied for the said post. After the selection of the petitioner, a letter dated 18.8.05 was issued informing him his selection and he was directed to appear on 21.8.05 along with his testimonials and for a medical examination before the Police Centre Hazaribagh. The petitioner had been suffering from Jaundice since 17.8.05 and he preferred a representation dated 30.9.05 to the respondent No. 2 requesting therein that he may be given one month’s time to submit his joining. Thereafter, the respondent also issued a letter on 21.10.05 by which, the petitioner was informed and directed to be presented at Police Centre Hazaribagh along with all educational certificates, Caste certificate etc. on 25.10.05 at Police Centre, Hazaribagh but the petitioner did not report according to the communication made to him. Again, the respondent sent a letter dated 1.12.2005, whereby, the petitioner was informed that he had not appeared at Police Centre, Hazaribagh by 25.10.05 and no information with regard to the presence was sent, therefore, it was treated that the petitioner is not interested for the service on the said post and the other person would be appointed. Thereafter, no representation has been moved for seeking further time by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate me any other representation, except the represent made on 30.9.05-Annexure-2 to the writ application, which has been made for seeking further time. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The factual matrix, which has been stated above, is not disputed and the only question is to be determined whether the petitioner is entitled to get the further time for joining pursuant to his request, which was made vide annexure-2 to the writ application. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The factual matrix, which has been stated above, is not disputed and the only question is to be determined whether the petitioner is entitled to get the further time for joining pursuant to his request, which was made vide annexure-2 to the writ application. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was directed by respondent No. 2 to present on 21.8.05 at Police Centre, Hazaribagh for his medical examination as well as submitting his testimonials. Thereafter, on 21.10.05 again a letter was sent informing the petitioner to appear by 25.10.05 at Police Centre, Hazaribagh. It is presumed that even if, he has sent a communication on 30.9.05(Annexure-2) seeking one month’s time to report as stated above at Police Centre, Hazaribagh, the said period has elapsed and thereafter, respondent No. 2 has again given a final notice on 1.12. 05 stating therein that he did not appear before the Police Centre, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, there is no communication for seeking extension of time and as such the petitioner has no right to seek the extension of period for which, he sought, has already elapsed. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned letter. Apart from this, the final order dated 1.12.2005 which is impugned, has been challenged in this court in the year 2008 and there are latches and delays in filing this application and the same has not been explained. In view of the above, this petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petitioner is dismissed in limine. No order as to cost.