UMA SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 1st May, 2008, by which, the appellant's writ petition, C.W.J.C No. 5199 of 1996 (P) was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents published an advertisement, in response of which, number of persons applied for the post of clerks and peons. The appellant also applied for the post of clerk and he was duly selected for appointment on 04.12.1987. The petitioner's case was considered for regularization in service by the Divisional Establishment Committee on 6.12.1989 and the committee regularized the services of the petitioner. After six years of his continuous service, the petitioner along with others were removed from service by memo no. 1398 dated 07.12.1993 issued by the Director, Secondary Education. The petitioner to challenge the said order of removal from service preferred a writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 1539 of 1994, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation, which was rejected and, therefore, the petitioner preferred present writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 5199 of 1996 (P) to challenge the order dated 21.09.1995.

(3.) Petitioner's contention before the learned Single Judge was that several other persons also submitted representations after approaching this Court in the case of Kavindra Kumar Singh, order of reinstatement was passed. It is also submitted that not only this but one another person, Sadanand Thakur, whose representation was rejected, approached this Court by filing writ petition, being C.W.J.C No. 1752 of 2001, which was allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 10th March, 2003. Against the said judgment dated 10th March, 2003, L.P.A. No. 397 of 2003 was preferred which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14th July, 2005. According to learned counsel for the appellant against that order of Division Bench, the State preferred Special Leave to Appeal, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that in view of the above facts, learned Single Judge committed error by dismissing the writ petition of the writ petitioner, because of the reason that similarly situated persons have already been given appointment by setting aside the order of removal from service and the persons whose termination order was not set aside then this Court has allowed the prayer of such writ petitioner in the case of Sadanand Thakur and it has attained finality.