CHANDRADEV KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is unfortunate that without any just reason the name of the petitioner has been removed from the panel prepared for giving appointment. This was done only for the purpose of accommodating somebody who was lower down in the panel. The reason for removal, as furnished, is that the petitioner was given an appointment but the petitioner did not join and, accordingly, he lost his appointment as well as his right to remain in the panel. I called for the appointment letter of the petitioner. After obtaining several adjournments the appointment letter could not be produced which suggests that the petitioner was never appointed. If the petitioner was never appointed, he could not be removed from the panel.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the State seeks to rely upon Annexure -F to the counter affidavit which shows that the body thereof was written not by the petitioner but by somebody else. In the body of Annexure -F an attempt had been made to show that the petitioner did not join, but if the body of Annexure -F so written is construed as a whole, it would be evident that the petitioner had been made to run from the pillar to post without giving any appointment. Unless a person is appointed, the question of the person discharging duties pursuant to such appointment does not arise. It has, therefore, been incorrectly stated in the counter affidavit that after an appointment was given to the petitioner, the petitioner refused to discharge his duties and hence his name had been removed from the panel. This is a serious offence, which has been committed by the person who has given such false statement in the counter affidavit. That person should be prosecuted under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code for making false statement on oath. However, I think that the matter must be investigated by the. Vigilance Department and hence the matter is referred to the Vigilance Department.

(3.) HAVING regard to the fact that the petitioner was never appointed, the one and only conclusion would be that the petitioner's name could not be removed from the panel and the name of the petitioner was removed from the panel with the sole object of reaching the benefit of appointment to a person who was down below in the panel. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed with a direction upon the State Government to appoint the petitioner forthwith in the event the State Government has given appointment to any person below the petitioner in the said panel. The expression 'forthwith' must be literally construed and shall under no circumstances exceed seven days from the date of service of a copy of this ORDER :upon respondent no. 2. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.