Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1069 (JHR)

Nityanand Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-18

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
Order The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider his claim for appointment as Chowkidar in place of his father namely, Hriday Narayan Prasad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner superannuated from the service in the year 2011. He was working as Sardar of the Circle Office, Jarmundi and after his superannuation, in view of the provision under the Chowkidar Act, the petitioner applied for appointment in the place of his father. The petitioner has another brother namely, Pankaj Kumar Sinha who however, was overage on the date when application for appointment was considered. 3. Since the claim of the elder brother of the petitioner was recommended by the competent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in which a specific stand has been taken, that the selection committee which comprises six persons including the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Development Commissioner of the District, interviewed the petitioner as well as his elder brother. Before the Committee the father of the petitioner categorically stated that he wanted his elder son to be appointed in his place and if appointment to the elder son cannot be granted, then his grandson may be considered for appointment. These facts have been recorded in the proceeding of the selection committee dated 19.07.2012. In these facts, the case of the petitioner was not recommended. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as State and perused the documents on record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in fact his father himself had nominated his name for appointment on the post on which his father was working and in support of such claim, an affidavit dated 19.12.2011 has been filed in the present case. He has further submitted that since his elder brother was overage his case should have been considered and he should have been granted appointment by the respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the selection committee and in view of the categoric statement made by the father of the petitioner, appointment to the petitioner was not given. 8. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the selection committee and in view of the categoric statement made by the father of the petitioner, appointment to the petitioner was not given. 8. A perusal of the documents on record and the proceeding of the selection committee dated 19.07.2012 would reveal that father of the petitioner also appeared before the selection committee and he has made an statement that he wanted his elder son to be appointed in his place. In these facts since his elder son had crossed the age of 35 years, therefore, a recommendation was made by the selection committee for relaxation of the age of the elder brother of the petitioner. 9. In view of proceeding and the recommendation of the selection committee dated 19.07.2012 and since the father of the petitioner made a specific statement that his affidavit has been obtained by force by the petitioner, the statement recorded in the proceeding of the selection committee dated 19.07.2012 has to be believed. Moreover, the proceeding and the recommendation of the selection committee is also not under challenge in this proceeding, and therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition and hence this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.