RAJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJEEV Kumar, the petitioner herein, who was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge as against the temporary post of Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court in the year 2003, was terminated by the order of the State of Jharkhand dated 11.3.2006. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the said order dated 11.3.2006.

(2.) THE short facts, which are relevant for disposal of the writ petition, are as follows. - An advertisement was issued by the High Court on 23.5.2001 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge from Bar quota. The petitioner, who was a practising Lawyer, sent his application. He was called for writing examination. Accordingly, he wrote the written examination. On 19.8.2001, he was informed that he secured minimum qualification marks in the examination and was called for interview. Accordingly, he attended the interview on 6.10.2001. The petitioner was finally selected on 17.10.2001. His selection was published by the Gazette Notification on 2.2.2002. He thereupon joined on 6.2.2002 in Garhwa. On 24.6.2003 he was transferred to Daltanganj. In 2004 he was transferred to Hazaribagh. On noticing that some persons, who were not eligible, were selected for appointment to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, he sent a representation to the High Court drawing its attention about their selection and requesting for the cancellation of their appointment. However, no action was taken on the said representation. Therefore, he filed a writ petition before the High Court. However, the same was dismissed on 25.1.2006 for non -prosecution. However, the matter was not pursued further. At that stage, the High Court, on noticing a news -report published in the newspaper about an extremist carrying a prize of Rs. 1 lac on his head had been granted bail by the petitioner's court, called for the records of the bail application and the order and found the petitioner granted bail to the said accused. Thereafter the High Court on 23.2.2006 sent recommendation note to the Government for the termination of the petitioner. On 11.3.2006, the Government, accepting the recommendation terminated the service of the petitioner through the order of the Governor. Challenging the termination, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) REPLYING to the above contention, both the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 would make the following contention: