Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 727 (JHR)

Om Prakash Rajak v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-14

AMITAV K.GUPTA, R.BANUMATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.12.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.1624 of 2012 dismissing the writ petition and declining to quash the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Hazaribagh rejecting the representation of the appellant for joining the post of Class-IV. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement, the appellant had applied for appointment to the post of Class-IV group in the Building Construction Department in the District-Hazaribagh. The appellant appeared in the examination for the said post and was declared successful and thereafter he was issued appointment letter vide office order dated 28.1.2009. Vide letter dated 7.2.2009 (Annexure-2) the appellant was directed to report for joining within seven days. Again vide letter dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-3), the appellant was directed to give his joining within three days. The appellant could not give his joining as he was under judicial custody in connection with a criminal case under Section 376 IPC and he was in jail custody from 26.3.2008 to 23.3.2009. When the appellant was released on bail, he went to give his joining on 25.3.2009 but the respondents refused to permit him from joining. The appellant was finally acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2008 vide judgment dated 15.5.2009. 3. The appellant filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 239 of 2010 against the order of refusal of his joining and the same was disposed of on 27.01.2010 directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellant. The appellant represented before the Superintending Engineer for his joining. Vide Memo No. 349 dated 15.02.2010, the claim of the appellant was rejected saying that other persons have already joined against the sanctioned post and further there is no vacant post existing. The appellant thereafter filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1624 of 2012 and the same was dismissed and hence this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel for the appellant and J.C to Mr. Sumir Prasad, S.C. I for the respondents-State. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Writ Court failed to consider that the criminal case filed against the appellant resulted into acquittal hence the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant. Sumir Prasad, S.C. I for the respondents-State. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Writ Court failed to consider that the criminal case filed against the appellant resulted into acquittal hence the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant. It is further submitted that the Writ Court did not consider that there are existing vacancies in the Class IV Grade in the District of Hazaribagh and dismissed the writ only on the ground that the appellant was involved in a criminal case. It is further submitted that having regard to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 239 of 2010 dated 27.01.2010, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for being appointed on the Class IV post in the District of Hazaribagh. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that inspite of the appointment letter being sent to the appellant dated 28.01.2009 and reminders vide letter dated 7.02.2009 and letter dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure 2 and 3 of the memo of appeal respectively), the appellant had not joined the post and, therefore, two other persons, namely, Ramashish Ram and Kishori Mahato, from the recommendation list, were given appointment, in place of the appellant and one Suresh Kumar. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since those persons were already appointed, the appellant has no right to seek direction upon the respondents to consider him for appointment on Class IV post in the District of Hazaribagh. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record and also the order of the Writ Court. 8. After provisional selection of the appellant vide letter no. 79 dated 28.01.2009, vide letter no. 106 dated 07.02.2009 and vide letter no. 171 dated 19.02.2009, reminders were sent to the appellant with a direction to give his joining otherwise his candidature would be cancelled. Since the appellant was in custody in connection with a criminal case from 26.03.2008 to 23.03.2009, the appellant did not join the duty. It is to be pointed out that the appellant had not intimated the appointing authority about his difficulties in joining and also not chosen to seek extension of time to give the joining. Since the appellant was in custody in connection with a criminal case from 26.03.2008 to 23.03.2009, the appellant did not join the duty. It is to be pointed out that the appellant had not intimated the appointing authority about his difficulties in joining and also not chosen to seek extension of time to give the joining. Since the appellant did not join the said post, as per condition indicated in Annexures 2 and 3, the candidature of the appellant was cancelled vide letter no. 251 dated 28.02.2009. 9. In the counter affidavit, filed in the writ petition, the respondents have stated that by letter dated 252 dated 28.02.2009, two other persons, namely Ramashish Ram and Kishori Mahato from the said recommendation list, were given appointment in place of appellant and Suresh Kumar. It is further stated that the said Ramashish Ram and Kishori Mahato gave their joining and they are also working. Since in the letter sent to the appellant, it was clearly stated that in case of non-joining of the appellant, the appellant's candidature would be cancelled, he cannot seek direction upon the respondents to consider him for appointment on the Class IV post in the District of Hazaribagh as the appellant neither sought for any extension of time nor joined the post. 10. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that by order dated 27.01.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 239 of 2010, the Writ Court held that in view of the subsequent acquittal of the appellant by the criminal court, the appointing authority should consider extending the time for joining and while so the respondents were not right in not extending the time to the appellant for joining. The stand of the appellant does not merit acceptance as in W.P.(S) No. 239 of 2010 vide order dated 27.01.2010, the Writ Court has clearly observed that 'the appointing authority should consider extending the time for joining, unless, in the meantime, third party rights have intervened by the appointment on the petitioner's post being offered to some other candidate and that other candidate having already joined.' As pointed out earlier, two other persons, namely Ramashish Ram and Kishori Mahato were already appointed vide letter no. 252 dated 28.02.2009 and they have subsequently joined the post and the same has also not been challenged by the appellant. 11. 252 dated 28.02.2009 and they have subsequently joined the post and the same has also not been challenged by the appellant. 11. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that there was no Class IV post vacant in the District of Hazaribagh. Having regard to the submission that there was no vacancy pursuant to the advertisement as the same has already filled up, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any merit warranting interference of this Court. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.