HEERA PRASAD RAMANI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the supplementary show cause replies filed on behalf of the Opp. Party No. 2, the stand taken by way of reiteration with the compliance of the directions of this Court as given in the impugned order passed in the writ application, the concerned authorities of the Respondents have considered the petitioner's claim for his regularization of service to the post of Roller Driver and have taken the decision on the same which have been communicated to the petitioner. It is explained that by the decision taken, the petitioner's claim for his regularization has been refused on the ground that there is no sanctioned post of roller Driver in the district of Deoghar and as such, the petitioner cannot claim his regularization on the post which has not been sanctioned.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, disputes the stand taken by the respondents on merits of their decision, on the ground that the stand taken by the Respondents/Opp. Parties is not only misleading but also contrary to the averments made by the Respondents in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner vide C.W.J.C. No. 8085 of 2000. Referring to the order passed in the subsequent writ application which the petitioner had filed, vide W.P.(S) No. 797 of 2008 dated 14.07.2008, learned counsel submits that the stand which is now taken by the Respondents/Opp. Parties, is contrary to the stand taken by them in the earlier writ application, vide C.W.J.C. No. 8085 of 2000 and this Court had observed in the context of the above facts that the plea taken by the Respondents that the post is not sanctioned, is baseless and contrary to the statement made in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ application No. C.W.J.C. No. 8085 of 2000.

(3.) It appears that even though on the basis of the aforesaid observations, this Court had disposed of the writ application, vide W.P.(S) No. 797 of 2008, with the direction to the concerned authorities to take appropriate decision regarding regularization of the petitioner's service as directed by the Patna High Court, the Respondents have again come up with the same stand that the post is not sanctioned. The explanation offered is contrary to the stand taken by the respondents in the earlier counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent-State in C.W.J.C. No. 8085 of 2000 and the explanation offered is that the statements made in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ application, was erroneous and wrong as it was made by the concerned authorities on the basis of misleading information furnished by the Head Clerk of the concerned department.