BHOLA MAHAMARIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this writ application is for review of the .order dated 5.9.2008 in respect of the following observations:

(2.) Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. K.P. Deo, Advocate submits that there appears an inadvertent error in the aforesaid order in as much as the facts of the case is not that the petitioner's father died during the pendency of this writ application. Rather, he had died way back in the year 1985 and prior to his death, he was dismissed from service. Learned Counsel submits further that the necessary correction in the order needs therefore, to be made in the light of the factual position as stated above.

(3.) On perusal of the contents of the writ application, it does appear that according to the pleadings of the petitioner that his father was initially appointed as a Pradhan of the village and was dismissed from service and he died way back in the year 1985. The petitioner had assailed the order of his father's dismissal from the post of Pradhan after he was substituted in place of his father in the case before the Commissioner's Court. In the present writ application, the petitioner had assailed the order of dismissal of his deceased- father from the post of Pradhan, which was passed on 21.7.1979. The writ application was disposed of by the aforesaid order with a direction to the respondent-State to consider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Pradhan, with the observation that the stigma attached to the dismissal of the deceased, if any, does not need any clearance and the same would not apply to the petitioner. Learned Counsel explains further that the successors of a Pradhan, who is dismissed from service, cannot claim eligibility to the post on the ground of succession.