Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1468 (JHR)

Mani Shankar Tripathi v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-26

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner completed the tenure of Bal Police on which he was appointed on compassionate ground on the death of his father, Late Devendra Tripathi, Sub-Inspector of Police, who fell Martyr in a terrorist attack while serving in Chaibasa District Police Force. He has been offered to apply for being considered for appointment as a Constable by the respondents through Memo no. 2602 dated 15th July, 2010. Petitioner, however, has chosen to seek appointment on the post of Clerk on compassionate ground after he attained the age of 19 years by preferring the instant writ petition in 2013. Annexure-1 is Police Order no. 209/1988 relating to appointment of Bal Police on the death of police personnel during the course of their duty or in encounter. Petitioner was also appointed under the provisions of Police Order which at Clauses 7 & 8 provides that after completion of 19 years, the tenure of Bal Police would come to an end and if such person is interested and fulfills the necessary physical tests and measurements and possesses the educational qualification, he can be considered for appointment as a Constable. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited the instance of one Dev Priyo Ghosh who was directed to be appointed on the post of Clerk by the order of Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand through Memo no. 1082 dated 23rd June, 2006 in Chaibasa District Police Force. He has also referred to the case of one Amlesh Singh whose claim for compassionate appointment on a Class-III Post was also approved by Home Department through Memo no. 3588 dated 16th November, 2005 in Chaibasa District (Annexure-4 Series). 4. Counsel for the Respondent-State submits that the petitioner has not availed of opportunity to be appointed as a Constable after he ceased to be a Bal Police though offer was made to him in 2010 itself. No right to be appointed on any particular post on compassionate ground flows out of the scheme or circular relied upon by the petitioner also. Instances cited by the petitioner may be of different transaction which cannot make out a case of discrimination against the petitioner. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may still be granted opportunity to stake his claim for the post of Constable before the respondents. 6. Instances cited by the petitioner may be of different transaction which cannot make out a case of discrimination against the petitioner. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may still be granted opportunity to stake his claim for the post of Constable before the respondents. 6. In the aforesaid state of facts and the submission of the parties, this Court is of the view that under the relevant provisions of Police Order no. 209/1988, no right to be appointed on any Class-III Post is made out on the part of a Bal Police though his case can be considered for appointment as a Constable after attaining 19 years of age. The instances cited by the petitioner cannot make out a case of discrimination as they do not relate to any transaction in which the case of the petitioner was considered while others were appointed on Class-III post. Reliance placed upon the judgment by learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 60 of 2014 rendered in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Vinay Kumar reported in 2015 (2) JBCJ 212 (HC) [: 2015(2) JLJR 62 ] is therefore also misplaced. Therefore, the claim for appointment on Class-III Post by the petitioner on compassionate ground is not made out. However, it is open to the petitioner to stake his claim, if he is otherwise eligible before the respondent authority for appointment on the post of Constable in terms of the Police Order no. 209/1988, which may be considered within a reasonable time in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.