RATAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) In a nutshell, the petitioner's case is that the State Government published an advertisement on 13.01.2004 in the daily newspaper for appointment of constables in the district of Hazaribagh, Koderma, Giridih and Chatra. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the same. Thereafter, the selection process completed. The petitioner along with other candidates was selected finally on 22.2.2006. This fact has been stated in para 9 of the writ petition. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit. Rather, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that on scrutiny it was found that his name has been inserted after removing the page. Later on, his name was missing from the list. Later on, the said selection was cancelled by the competent authority. Again, a fresh selection process was started in the year 2006. The said order of the respondents was challenged before the High Court by some of the candidates who preferred the W.P.(S) No. 1242 of 2006, WP(S) 7236 of 2005, WP(S) No. 226 of 2006 and WP(S) No. 368 of 2006 (Krishnaji and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others) against the cancellation of the result prepared by the respondents. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and the fresh selection process was cancelled. Pursuant to the decision, the petitioner and other persons were allowed to join and later on 2.8.2007, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled alleging that there was some interpolation in the master chart. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner from service. Learned counsel further contended that the authorities did not consider the fact that it was only after holding of the enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the appointment and after the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnaji and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others (2006 [4] JLJR 702), the petitioner was asked to join the service. Learned counsel further submitted that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner from service on the basis of the fresh enquiry report is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State refuted the contention and contended that it was only on the basis of the interpolation found in the master chart that the appointment of some of the persons have been cancelled after holding enquiry .