BODH SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the directions issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 against the interest of the petitioner in not permitting him to undergo the training for joining the services.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner claiming to be an oustee of the land applied for an appointment to the respondents Nos. 2 & 3, who in their turn issued an appointment order and permitted the petitioner to proceed on training. According to the petitioner after some time he was orally asked to quit the training and go back. The petitioner says and submits that he does not know as to what happened and for what reason he was removed.

(3.) The respondents Nos. 2 & 3 placing their reliance upon the order of appointment submit that after the appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, it came to their knowledge that some-one else was appointed in lieu of the land acquisition as nomines of the land oustee and as only one man could be appointed, the petitioner was discontinued. According to the respondents Nos. 2 & 3, under Annexure R/1, one Balmukund Devangan was appointed and under Annexure R/2, the services of the petitioner were rightly terminated.