RAMESH RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. In both the writ petitions grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been appointed to the post of police driver in the district of Palamau and Latehar respectively on the sole ground that they had made their application for two districts simultaneously under Advertisement No. 1/2010.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the said issue is no longer res Integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.S. No. 1658 of 2011 as also in W.P.S. No. 3594 of 2012 Reported in 2013 3 PLJR 679. According to the counsel for the petitioners the said condition under Clause-4 of the advertisement has been quashed by this Court in the case of Mithilesh Tiwari, petitioner in W.P.S. No. 1658 of 2011. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have made representations before the respondent No. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa-cum-Chairman, Palamau Range Constable Police Selection Board, Palamau at Daltonganj for redressal of their aforesaid grievances relating to their claim for appointment to the post of police driver under Advertisement No. 1/2010 in the respective districts of Palamau and Latehar as the same has not been finally redressed or decided.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that if the petitioners prefer fresh representation before the respondent No. 3, the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa-cum-Chairman, Palamau Range Constable Police Selection Board, Palamau at Daltonganj, their case shall be considered in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time.