Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1598 (JHR)

Umesh Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-16

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner was terminated from the service on 28.8.1988. He filed a Writ Petition before this Court alongwith two others being C.W.J.C. No. 2249 of 1990(R). By order dated 23.11 .1990, the said Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn considering the fact that the respondents were considering the cases of the petitioner's absorption in Government service for which, interview had already been held and they were asked to produce necessary documents. It was further observed in the said order that the withdrawal of the writ petition shall not be considered impediment for absorption of the petitioners in Government service if they are found to be fit if so absorbed. 3. From perusal of Annexure-5, it appears that when an application was made by the petitioner .for his re-appointment, an enquiry was made on the application made by the petitioner and all the relevant documents relating to his appointment were verified by one' Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh, In charge, Medical Officer, who was appointed as enquiry officer. On enquiry, he found that on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, the Chief Medical Officer, Giridih had called the petitioner for interview for re-appointment by issue of letter dated 27.9.1989 and all the testimonials were verified but still the appointment could not be made. The report further reveals that the case of Satyendra Narayan Singh and Rajendra Prasad Gupta were similarly situated to the petitioner and they were reappointed on the basis of the order passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 9102-07/1990. 4. On consideration of materials, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that before cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, a notice to show-cause should have been given. He further came to the conclusion that when Satyendra Narayan Singh and Rajendra Gupta were appointed on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court as well as of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, then the petitioner should have also been appointed since his case was similarly situated. He further came to the conclusion that in the Primary Health Centre, Gomia, the post was still vacant and available. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State. He further came to the conclusion that in the Primary Health Centre, Gomia, the post was still vacant and available. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State. In paragraph-7 thereof, it has been stated that since the petitioner did not move the Supreme Court by filing any S.L.P. and was not a party in the S.L.P. before the Supreme Court and, therefore, he cannot take advantage of the order and direction made in S.L.P. 9102-07/90. The only point raised in the counter affidavit is that appointment of the petitioner was not made after following the due process and as such, was illegal, therefore, was terminated. The plea of the petitioner that his case is on similar footing to that of Rajendra Prasad Gupta and Satyendra Narayan Singh, has not been met by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The case of the petitioner has not considered, as it appears, that their cases are only on the ground that the petitioner did not move before the Supreme Court and therefore, he is (sic not ?) entitled to take the benefits of the order of Supreme Court passed in S.L.P. No. 9102-07/90. This plea raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit is wholly illegal and invalid in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. C. Lalitha reported in 2006(1) SCC 640 wherein, in paragraph-26 thereof, it has been held as follows:- "26. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.......... " 6. In the case of Abhimanyu Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2004(2) JCR 521 (Jhr.) [ : 2004(2) JLJR 450 ], this Court, after noticing the grievance of the petitioner in that case, that though his case was exactly similar to Arun Kumar Rout and others, but his case was not considered for reappointment on the ground that he was not a party to the case before the Supreme Court, this Court held that since the case of the petitioner is situated exactly on similar footing and, therefore, there is no reason that he should be treated differently. Accordingly, direction was made by this Court to treat the petitioner on the similar footing to that of Arun Kumar Rout and others. 7. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, noticed above, in my view, the reasons for not considering the case of the petitioner by the respondents is illegal, invalid and unjustified. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is• being disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for reappointment in the light of the findings above. In case the case of the petitioner is found to be exactly similarly situated to that of Satyendra Narayan Singh and Rajendra Prasad Gupta then the respondents shall pass consequential orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.