JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him as constable in Jharkhand Police, since he was selected but could not join due to non-receipt of joining order. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was selected against the Advt. No. 1/10 for the post of constable and was directed to join the said post at Garhwa, result of which was published in Hindi daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ in its Ranchi edition dated 1st June, 2012. Since, he was not the subscriber of the said newspaper, he had no knowledge about the information regarding his joining and as such, he could not join the said post at Garhwa. On receipt of information regarding his selection, he went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Garhwa for his joining but the respondents have not accepted his joining on the ground that the petitioner was supposed to join between 11.06.2012 to 25.06.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation dated 21.09.2012 before the Director General of Police through A.I.G.-cum-Special Assistant to D.G.P. but till date no reply has been received by the petitioner to his representation. Hence, this writ application has been preferred. 4. Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not joining his selected post since onus lies upon the respondents to communicate the said joining order to the petitioner but the respondents, in place of communicating the said joining order to the petitioner, have illegally and arbitrarily published the same in Hindi daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ in its Ranchi edition dated 1st June, 2012, of which the petitioner is not a subscriber since he is residing at Jamshedpur. The said action of the respondents is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submits that till date the petitioner has not received any official information regarding his joining. The said action of the respondents is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submits that till date the petitioner has not received any official information regarding his joining. It is further submitted that the first list of joining was published on 26th November, 2011 in the newspaper published from Jamshedpur but the 2nd list was published from Ranchi, which is illegal and arbitrary, as the person who reside outside the Ranchi have no access to the newspaper published from Ranchi. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned JC to AG vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that apart from publishing of joining order in Hindi newspaper ‘Hindustan’, a letter No. 2227/Ra. dated 11.06.2012 was also sent from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa to the petitioner at the address which was mentioned in his application form i.e. Kaushal Kumar, son of Naresh Kumar, resident of village Golmuri, Tin Plate, Postal Colony, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, District East Singhbhum to appear before the office of the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa on or before 25.06.2012 with all his original certificates for its verification but the petitioner did not turn-up and after lapse of the aforesaid period, reported at the said office on 17.09.2012, which is also evident from his letter dated 21.09.2012, annexed with the writ application as Annexure-2 and accordingly, there is no question of non-communication of the joining order. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable in Palamu Range, he should have subscribed a major local newspaper of that area but nevertheless, a letter was also sent to the petitioner on the address mentioned in his application form. It is further submitted that even if someone neither report for joining or prays for time, even after an individual letter sent to him with strong direction “to appear otherwise his candidature will be cancelled”, implies that he is not interested for that post and the other candidates have been given opportunity to join. Learned counsel further submits that the reasons for not receiving the letter is due to change of address by the petitioner but in such a case, he should have informed about change of his address. Learned counsel further submits that the reasons for not receiving the letter is due to change of address by the petitioner but in such a case, he should have informed about change of his address. Summing-up his arguments, learned counsel submits that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Petitioner has filed reply to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. It has been submitted that at no point of time the respondents ever have communicated the joining order to the petitioner. The story of sending the letter to the petitioner is incorrect/fabricated in view of the fact that the respondents have nowhere stated the mode of service, whether the letter was sent by ordinary post or by registered post. The said letter is a manufactured one and prepared after filing of the writ application. There is no proof that when the said letter was sent and in absence of any cogent material, the fact of sending letter is incorrect. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has mentioned both permanent as well as correspondence address in his application form but since the letter was not dispatched on either of the above two addresses, there is no question of receiving the said letter and the said letter is nothing but an eye-wash. The story cooked-up by the respondents is not believable as a person who is in dire need of service, on receipt of such joining letter, could restrain himself from joining the said post. It is further submitted that a person, who resides at Jamshedpur cannot be expected to subscribe the newspaper published from Palamu/ Ranchi, when there is no information that in which newspaper and from which place, the result will be published and hence, the statement made by the respondents in this regard, itself discloses the mischief attitude of the respondents. 7. In pursuance to the direction given by this Court dated 23.06.2015, whereby this Court has directed the respondents to file an affidavit specifically mentioning therein the mode of service of the letter as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, the respondents have filed supplementary counter-affidavit. 7. In pursuance to the direction given by this Court dated 23.06.2015, whereby this Court has directed the respondents to file an affidavit specifically mentioning therein the mode of service of the letter as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, the respondents have filed supplementary counter-affidavit. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that in pursuant to the direction of this Court, the then Chairman of the Selection Board, presently posted as DIG (Personnel), Ranchi has called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa about the mode of service and date of dispatch of the call letter dated 11.06.2012. In reply to the said letter, the S.P. Garhwa reported to the DIG (Personnel), Ranchi vide his letter dated 06.07.2015 that the call letter dated 11.06.2012 was dispatched through registered post vide Registry No. 11268 dated 26.06.2012, which was dispatched after expiry of the date on which the petitioner had to appear before the authorities for verification. Seeing the negligence on part of the persons, who were entrusted with the dispatch duty, the DIG (Personnel) directed the S.P. Garhwa to take disciplinary action against the erring persons. On such direction, the S.P. Garhwa has initiated departmental proceeding against two erring officers namely, Krishna Kumar Sharma and Om Prakash Pandey and the same was also communicated to DIG (Personnel) by S.P. Garhwa vide his letter dated 27.07.2015, whereby it has been informed that the charge memo has already been served upon the said persons for indiscipline and dereliction of duty. 8. It has been very fairly submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General that in view of supplementary counter-affidavit it is clear that the respondents are at fault. Seeing negligence on the part of the persons who were entrusted with the dispatch duty, the D.I.G. (Personnel) directed the S.P. Garhwa to take disciplinary action against such persons. Pursuant to the direction of the D.I.G. (Personnel)-cum-the then Chairman of the Selection Board, the S.P. Garhwa has initiated departmental proceeding against the erring officials and assured that further action will be taken against the erring officials for their indiscipline and dereliction of duty. Under such circumstances, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General undertakes that the appointment letter will be issued to the petitioner, after verification of the original documents and compensation will also be paid subsequently as per direction of this Hon’ble Court. 9. Under such circumstances, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General undertakes that the appointment letter will be issued to the petitioner, after verification of the original documents and compensation will also be paid subsequently as per direction of this Hon’ble Court. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. This case is a burning example how a poor petitioner has been harassed at the hands of the respondents and deprived of the benefits of appointment. The petitioner qualified and was declared successful for appointment on the post of police constable and a call letter to that effect was also issued for joining on the post of police constable. The petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned respondent i.e. Superintendent of Police, Garhwa with all his original certificates relating to date of birth, educational qualification, caste and domicile. Admittedly, the said call letter was dispatched on the residential address of the petitioner on 26.06.2012 i.e. after the date fixed for appointment, which is apparent from Annexure-A dated 06.07.2015, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa. When the petitioner was not considered for appointment and the persons having similar marks or even less marks then the petitioner were appointed, the petitioner preferred writ petition in the year 2012 and the respondents justified their stand that due to his own fault, the petitioner was not appointed. Though call letter was sent to the petitioner on the address he had mentioned in his application form, it was specifically pleaded that because of the change in address, the petitioner might not have received the call letter, which was sent in proper time. 10. On 23.06.2015, this Court passed an order and granted two weeks’ time to substantiate the contentions made in the counter-affidavit with respect to notice being sent to the residential address of the petitioner. After the said order, the respondents filed supplementary counter-affidavit on 01.10.2015, with a specific stand realizing their mistake that the call letter itself was dispatched on 26.06.2012 i.e. after the fixed period of appointment from 11.06.2012 to 25.06.2012. Admittedly, the petitioner has been deprived to enjoy the fruits of appointment because of the lackadaisical and lethargic approach of the respondent-authorities. After the said order, the respondents filed supplementary counter-affidavit on 01.10.2015, with a specific stand realizing their mistake that the call letter itself was dispatched on 26.06.2012 i.e. after the fixed period of appointment from 11.06.2012 to 25.06.2012. Admittedly, the petitioner has been deprived to enjoy the fruits of appointment because of the lackadaisical and lethargic approach of the respondent-authorities. Merely initiation of departmental proceeding and taking disciplinary action against the erring official responsible for the said act will not compensate the petitioner for his appointment, which was to be done in the year 2012 itself. 11. As it is very clear that the petitioner was deprived of his appointment, which was due in the year 2012 itself, for five long years, because of laches on the part of the respondents, I hereby direct respondent No. 2, Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment with retrospective date i.e. from the date the similarly situated persons were appointed after proper verification of the original certificates. If after verification, the case of the petitioner is found fit for appointment in accordance with the rules, the petitioner be considered for appointment with retrospective date i.e. from the date the other similarly situated persons were appointed, with all consequential benefits including seniority. 12. As it was also required from the petitioner to be vigilant regarding his appointment, instead of giving direction to the respondents to pay the full salary from the date of initial appointment, I direct the respondents to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.5.00 lakh (Rupees Five Lakh) by way of compensation to the petitioner. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found fit for appointment, after proper verification, the letter of appointment be issued and joining be accepted from the date similarly situated persons have been appointed and the amount of compensation of Rs.5.00 lakh (Rupees Five Lakh) be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of his appointment. 13. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 14. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.