AMIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) VIDE advertisement contained in Annexure -11 dated 13.8.2002 process for recruitment of Constables (General Duty i.e. G.D.) was initiated. The petitioner finding himself to hold the requisite qualification as well as other physical parameters laid therein applied. He was allotted Roll No. 364 for the purposes of his selection. He participated in the. physical test held on 10.11.2002 and thereafter appeared in the written test on 3.12.2002. He was successful in both the tests.

(3.) THE respondents raised an objection that the domicile certificate issued by the Circle Officer was not acceptable as in terms of the advertisement the certificate ought to be of the Sub Divisional Officer or the District Magistrate concerned. The petitioner was granted two days time to produce the same. The date fixed was 24.2.2003. The petitioner contends in the writ application that he had approached the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad but since he was engaged in certain urgent magisterial duty the same was not issued to him by 24.2.2003. The certificate in question was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer only on 26.2.2003. The petitioner, immediately rushed with the certificate and tried to produce the same before the authorities on 27.2.2003. It is alleged that the petitioner was not allowed to enter the Group Centre and, therefore, was prevented from submitting the domicile certificate in person. Left with no option he forwarded the domicile certificate with an application along with an appeal by registered post to the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector as well as a copy to Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Group Centre, Jamshedpur. The petitioner further states that the last date for issuance of appointment letter by the Group Centre, Jamshedpur was 31.3.2003 and the requisite application along with domicile certificate was before the competent authorities by 27.3.2003. However, the domicile certificate was not accepted by the respondents and the prayer made before the superior authorities was rejected vide order dated 26.5.2003.