Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 774 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
Order : I. A. No. 1915 of 2015 This interlocutory application has been filed for fixing an early date of hearing of W.P.(S) No. 5967 of 2009. 2. Since the case is being taken up for hearing, the I.A. No. 1915 of 2015 stands disposed of. W. P. (S) No. 5967 of 2009: 3. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith accept the joining of the petitioner on the post of Jalwahak (Water Carrier). 4. The petitioner made an application in the prescribed form pursuant to advertisement no. 01 of 2008 for appointment of 4th grade employees which included the post of Jalwahak also. On being successful, the petitioner was selected for the post of Jalwahak in Jharkhand Armed Police-4, Bokaro on the basis of the second merit list and call letters dated 25.02.2009 and 09.06.2009 were also issued to the petitioner. However, in spite of sending call letters, the petitioner was not allowed to join which resulted in the petitioner submitting representation before the authorities concerned, but since no action was taken, the petitioner preferred the present writ application. 5. Heard Dr. S. N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Miss Shivani Verma, learned J.C. to A.G. on behalf of the State. 6. Dr. S. N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reasons for which the petitioner had not been to join to the post of Jalwahak pursuant to the petitioner being successful in the selection process was initially not known, but after the respondents have filed their counter affidavit, it disclosed that only on the basis of residential certificate, the petitioner has been debarred from joining. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a resident of Tatisilway in the district of Ranchi which fact had also been mentioned in the application form and the residential certificate was also submitted substantiating the residential proof of the petitioner as has been given by him in the application form, but ignoring the same, the respondents have refused to let the petitioner join. It has further been submitted that the respondents have taken into consideration residential certificate issued by the State of Bihar in the year 2006 which according to the learned senior counsel of the petitioner is not in dispute as the forefathers of the petitioner may have been the resident of the State of Bihar, but as would be apparent from the residential certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, the petitioner is indeed a resident of Tatisilway under Namkum Block and therefore, the respondents be directed to accept the joining of the petitioner. 7. Miss Shivani Verma, learned J.C. to A.G., on the other hand has submitted that although the petitioner has mentioned about his residence in the application form as Tatisilway under the District of Ranchi, but no documents could be produced by him in order to substantiate his residential claim. On the other hand, the petitioner had submitted residential proof issued by the Block Development Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur in the present State of Bihar. She therefore submits that since the petitioner did not submit residential certificate of the State of Jharkhand as such, the petitioner was rightly refused joining. 8. From the counter affidavit, it appears that in the general category, there was 9 posts of Jalwahak and in the merit list, the name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 10. Since one of the successful appointees resigned which led to a post falling vacant, call letter dated 25.02.2009 was issued to the petitioner. The application form which has been submitted by the petitioner depicts at clause 4, that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Tatisilway Chowk in the district of Ranchi. This form was submitted on 09.07.2008. The dispute arose with respect to the proof of residence in which the petitioner had submitted a residential certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Barhara, Bhojpur, State of Bihar dated 16.11.2006 which was contrary to the declaration made by the petitioner in the application form. The petitioner had tried to substantiate the said declaration by bringing on record a residential certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, but as would be evident from the said certificate, it was issued on 11.12.2008 which was much after the application form was filled up by the petitioner. The petitioner had tried to substantiate the said declaration by bringing on record a residential certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, but as would be evident from the said certificate, it was issued on 11.12.2008 which was much after the application form was filled up by the petitioner. In effect on 09.07.2008 when the application form was filled up/submitted by the petitioner, he had in his possession a residential certificate of the State of Bihar. Subsequent obtaining of a residential certificate in order to substantiate his claim in the application form that he was a resident of Tatisilway in the district of Ranchi cannot be said to be an indiscretion which would deserve sympathy. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of “Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar” reported in (2011) 2 JCR 186 (SC), wherein the facts were with respect to non mentioning of pending criminal case in the application form. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case had held that minor indiscretions committed by any people should be condoned and a more lenient view should be taken. The same view was taken in the case of “Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others” reported in (2012) 1 JCR 13 (SC). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the aforesaid judgments to drive home the point that the residential certificate which related to the State of Bihar was a minor indiscretion on the part of the petitioner eager to obtain a government service. 10. Learned J.C. to A.G. in support of her contentions has referred to the judgments in the case of “Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Konati Veketeswarulu” reported in AIR 2005 SC 4292 , wherein it was held that the cancellation of respondent's candidature was proper because a person who indulges in such suppression and obtains employment by false pretext does not deserve any public employment. 11. Minor indiscretions which was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above [ (2011) 2 JCR 186 (SC) and (2012) 1 JCR 13 (SC)], were with respect to non mentioning of the fact that criminal case was pending The offences were also trivial/minor in nature. 11. Minor indiscretions which was noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above [ (2011) 2 JCR 186 (SC) and (2012) 1 JCR 13 (SC)], were with respect to non mentioning of the fact that criminal case was pending The offences were also trivial/minor in nature. The same matrix cannot be made applicable to the present case inasmuch as, the petitioner had deliberately made a suppression with respect to proof of his residence and only after submission of the form, the residential certificate was obtained showing him to be a resident of Tatisilway in the district of Ranchi. Such act on the part of the petitioner cannot be by any stretch of imagination said to be a bona-fide mistake, rather it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to suppress the material facts as admittedly it would be evident that on the date of filling up/submission of the application form, the residential certificate showing the petitioner to be a resident in the State of Jharkhand was not in existence and any subsequent action to justify a previous suppression cannot have the sanction of law. 12. Accordingly, there being no merit in this writ application, the same is hereby dismissed.