LAWS(JHAR)-2013-7-173

SHAMBHU KUMAR RAVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On July 17, 2013
Shambhu Kumar Ravi Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for appointment on the post of constable for which the petitioner had applied pursuant to advertisement No. 01/2004. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement being advertisement No. 01/2004 was issued in the daily newspaper on 13.01.2004 inviting applications for appointment on the post of constable and the petitioner also applied in terms of the said advertisement. The petitioner is holding a Master's degree in Commerce and he is a Home Guard trained person. The petitioner was issued admit card with roll No. 767 and he appeared in physical as well as written test and he was declared successful and his name appeared in the merit list. A letter dated 02.04.2007 was issued to the petitioner directing him .to appear on 10.04.2007 for submission of original certificates and medical test at Police Centre, Hazaribagh where he appeared and completed all the formalities however the petitioner was not issued the appointment letter and therefore, he has approached this court by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed taking a stand that since it was found that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of constable for two districts, his joining was not accepted. The following stand has been taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit:

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the plea taken by the respondents that since the petitioner had applied for two districts his case was not considered, is not justified. Relying on orders passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 2281 of 2008 and L.P.A. No. 263 of 2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that such a plea has already been rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State has also been dismissed on merits by a Division Bench of this Court, and therefore, the present petition also deserves to be allowed.