JITENDRA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was born to one Sudin Sah who by caste is stated to be Kanu. The date of his birth is not indicated in the writ application. However, from the so-called deed of adoption contained in Annexure-1, petitioner was stated to be about 14 years when adopted. On the basis of the deed of adoption even a cast certificate certifying the petitioner as a Harijan was issued by the Block Development Officer, Sabour on 20th February, 1982. Even the local Mukhiya issued a certification stating that the petitioner was given away in adoption to one Shri Sudin Ram. In other words, as per the pleadings of the petitioner, petitioner became part and parcel of the household of Sudin Ram and he was entitled to all the benefits which the law provides to an adopted son including the benefits under Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, the Adoption Act).

(2.) In this background the petitioner came to be appointed on the post of a constable against the quota of a Scheduled Caste. However, during the course of verification the fact that the petitioner was not born to the Scheduled Caste parents and that the adoption was a sham, created with the object of deriving the benefit of reservation became an issue against the petitioner. Matter was inquired into. It did emerge that the petitioner had claimed benefit of reservation on the basis of so-called adoption and that he was not a Harijan who could be given benefit of appointment against a reserved post of a Scheduled Caste. At the relevant time, when Annexure-5 came to be passed by the Superintendent of Police on 9.8.1984, the petitioner was not even a confirmed employee under the respondents. The dispute emerged during the course of verification of the record of the petitioner when he was still undergoing training. In other words, he was still a probationer and not a permanent employee under the State. Said fact has meaning because the benefits which the petitioner may be looking for under Article 311 of the Constitution of India may not be available to him.

(3.) In the above stated background the Superintendent of Police, Munger decided to remove the petitioner from his post with effect from 19.7.1984. This order is Annexure-5 to the writ application. Thereafter an appeal was filed. The appellate authority rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-6 and the memorial was also rejected vide Annexure-7. All the three annexures are impugned in the present writ application of whose quashing petitioner wants.