UMESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was terminated from the service on 28.8.1988. He filed a Writ Petition before this Court alongwith two others being C.W.J.C. No. 2249 of 1990(R). By order dated 23.11.1990, the said Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn considering the fact that the respondents were considering the cases of the petitioner's absorption in Government service for which, interview had already been held and they were asked to produce necessary documents. It was further observed in the said order that the withdrawal of the writ petition shall not be considered impediment for absorption of the petitioners in Government service if they are found to be fit if so absorbed.

(3.) ON consideration of materials, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that before cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, a notice to show -cause should have been given. He further came to the conclusion that when Satyendra Narayan Singh and Rajendra Gupta were appointed on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court as well as of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, then the petitioner should have also been appointed since his case was similarly situated. He further came to the conclusion that, in the Primary Health Centre, Gomia, the post was still vacant and available.