SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER prays for an appropriate order directing the respondents to take steps as per the order dated 10.11.1999 passed by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 7963 of 1998 in so far as it relates to selection and appointment of eligible candidates including the petitioner to the sanctioned and vacant posts of Typist/ Stenographer -cum -Assistant in the Godda Collectorate and other sub - ordinate depart - mental offices. It is relevant to note that CWJC No. 7963 of 1998 was disposed off on 10.11.1999 with a specific direction, the relevant portion whereof at pages 40 reads as follows: ''

(3.) IT appears that on 14.7.2000 the Deputy Commissioner wrote a letter to the petitioner vide Annexure -7 and the said letter was addressed to another persons also. While referring to the aforementioned order passed in CWJC No. 7963 of 1998, the Deputy Commissioner indicated that it was necessary to find out as to whether the petitioner Had actually applied pursuant to that advertisement and whether it was within the time fixed in the said advertisement and whether, after filling up the said form, he had submitted the same in the District Employment Exchange or not? This letter, therefore, is an evidence to show that the respondents had initiated action for purposes of complying with the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 7963 of 1998. Although the petitioner has annexed a copy of this letter as Annexure -7 but the statement contained in relation to Annexure - 7 at paragraph -22, does not even whisper about the actual contents of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner. On the contrary, in paragraph -22, attempts have been made to give impression to this Court that a meeting of District Establishment Committee was to be held on 17.7.2000 when the application of the petitioner was to be considered. This statement is obviously incorrect meant to mislead this Court because only a sentence has been inserted at the bottom of that paragraph to the effect that "the petitioner was asked to provide certain information regarding his application". This is not the actual content of the letter dated 14.7.2000, as contained in Annexure -7.