SUMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No. 1292 dated 5th August. 2000, whereby the Respondent No. 5 rejected the claim of petitioner for appointment as Constable. The petitioner has further challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 7. Nanhu Yadav being illegal and forged.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner applied in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/98 for appointment to the post of Constable and having not appointed moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2192/2000R. The aforesaid case with other cases was disposed of on 18th July. 2000 with liberty to petitioner to prefer representation before the Chairman of Selection committee, Singhbhum West who. in his turn, was directed to dispose of the representation. It was only thereafter, the Respondents rejected the claim of petitioner.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently affidavit has been filed on 27th June, 2001 enclosing a copy of letter No. 834 dated 6th April, 2001 written by S.P., West Singhbhum. Chaibasa to the Police D.I.G. (Personnel). Jharkhand, Ranch!. By the said letter, the report of Rail S.P. Jamshedpur (Annexure -4) has been forwarded, wherein the name of Respondent No. 7, Nanhu Yadav has been shown to have been appointed on the basis of forged Home Guard Certificate.