Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 310 (JHR)

Idrish Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-27

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Judgment In this writ application, prayer has been made for issuance of a direction commanding upon the Respondents to organize a General meeting (Aamsabha) for selection of suitable candidates to the posts of the President and the Secretary of the ‘Labhuk Samittee’ (Committee) for construction of check Dam at village Kundalwah on Sugijor Nala in village Ladwatand at Block-Gandey (Giridih). A further prayer has been made for quashing the selection of the Respondent nos. 6 and 7 to the aforesaid posts. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent-State including the private Respondent nos. 6 and 7. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Respondent-State as also the learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 6 and 7. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure-3 which is an office order dated 10.01.2008, issued by the office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Giridih, whereby it was informed that the Aamsabha meeting which was scheduled to be held on 19.12.2007 could not be held for certain reasons and the next date was fixed on 18.01.2008 for holding the meeting of the Aamsabha for the purpose of selecting the suitable candidates to the posts of the President and the Secretary in the ‘Labhuk Samittee’ (Committee). Accordingly, the Aamsabha was held on 18.01.2008 and the petitioners were selected by the Aamsabha to the aforesaid two posts. 5. The petitioners’ grievance is that in spite of such selection made by the Aamsabha, the Respondents-authorities have declared that the private Respondent nos. 6 and 7 were selected by the Aamsabha at its meeting held on 29.11.2007. Learned counsel argues that if the Aamsabha had already been held on 29.11.2007 and the candidates were selected, then there could be no occasion for the Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Giridih to issue the letter on 10.01.2008 (Annexure 3) fixing the date for holding the Aamsabha on 18.01.2008. Learned counsel submits that it is apparent from the above that no Aamsabha was actually held on 29.11.2007 and neither was any selection of the private Respondents made to the aforesaid posts. Learned counsel submits that it is apparent from the above that no Aamsabha was actually held on 29.11.2007 and neither was any selection of the private Respondents made to the aforesaid posts. Learned counsel adds further that even otherwise, vide Annexure-3, the Aamsabha, which was scheduled to be held on 18.01.2008, was to be conducted under the supervision of the Assistant Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Giridih, whereas the purported Aamsabha, dated 29.11.2007, was not held under the supervision of the aforesaid Assistant Engineer. Furthermore, by Notification dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure-1 to the petitioner’s rejoinder to the counter affidavit), it has been notified that the Aamsabha for the selection of the suitable candidates to the aforesaid posts is to be conducted under the supervision of Shri Arun Kumar, Junior Engineer. This has also not been carried out by the Respondents. Learned counsel adds further that the petitioners have been illegally deprived of the privilege of their selection to the posts as made by the Aamsabha itself. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State as also the learned counsel for the private Respondent nos. 6 and 7 on the other hand would submit that though the petitioners have claimed themselves to be selected by the Aamsabha conducted on 18.01.2008 but no such document has been annexed by the petitioners to confirm that any such Aamsabha was actually held on 18.01.2008. 7. From the rival submissions, it appears that there is substance in the grounds advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If, as claimed by the Respondents, the Aamsabha was held on 29.11.2007 in which the private Respondents were selected finally, then there could be no occasion for announcing another scheduled date for holding the Aamsabha and that too under the supervision of the specified officers. 8. Furthermore, even though it appears that the petitioners’ complaint was referred by the concerned Deputy Commissioner for enquiry to the D.D.C., yet even in absence of receipt of any Report from the enquiring Officer, the concerned Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the complaint of the petitioners only on the ground that the local M.L.A. has certified that the Aamsabha was held and conducted on 29.11.2007. Strangely enough, it appears to have escaped the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that the signature of the M.L.A. was obtained after about four months of the purported date of holding of the Aamsabha. Strangely enough, it appears to have escaped the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that the signature of the M.L.A. was obtained after about four months of the purported date of holding of the Aamsabha. The Deputy Commissioner has not taken into consideration the letter dated 10.01.2008 (Annexure-3), issued by the Executive Engineer, containing directions to hold a Aamsabha on 18.01.2008 under the supervision of the Assistant Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division, Giridih. 9. The above facts clearly indicate that the Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind into the complaint lodged by the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to enquire into the complaint filed by the petitioners on their allegation that no Aamsabha was actually held on 29.11.2007 and on their assertion that the Aamsabha was actually held on 18.01.2008 in which both the petitioners were selected by the Aamsabha to the posts of the President and the Secretary of the ‘Labhuk Samittee’ (Committee) respectively. Such enquiry must be concluded within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicated effectively to the petitioners. 11. With these observations this writ application stands disposed of. 12. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.