Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 2 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.476 of 2014
------
Sunil Kumar Pandey, s/o- Late Awadh Pandey, R/o village-Tundi, PO-
Lohandi, PS- Chauparan, Dist.-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Home, Project Bhawan, PO & PS Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi.
2. Director General of Police, At PO + PS-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur, PO + PS +
Dist.-Hazaribagh.
4. Deputy General of Police (Personnel), At PO+ PS + Dist.-Ranchi.
5. Superintendent of Police, At PO+ PS + Dist.-Koderma.
6. Superintendent of Police, At PO+ PS + Dist.-Giridih.
7. District Superintendent of Education, At PO+ PS + Dist.-Hazaribagh
.... .... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
------
For the Appellant : Ms. Isha Khanna, Advocate
: Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II
: Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, AC to GP-II
------
ORAL JUDGMENT
16/Dated: 02.02.2023
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of
Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated
07.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.(S) No.5499 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the order dated
28.01.2013, by which, the writ petitioner has been dismissed from
service, has been refused to be interfered with.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ
petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
It is the case of the writ petitioner that an Advertisement
No.01/2010 dated 25.03.2010 was floated in the newspaper
regarding recruitment to the post of Constable in Police in the State
of Jharkhand. As per the Advertisement No. 01/2010, the minimum
educational qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of
Constable was 7th Pass from the educational institution recognized
by the State Government within the State of Jharkhand. The writ
petitioner was selected and appointed on the said post on the basis
of School Leaving Certificate obtained from Amoli Apurwa High
School at Mangandh, Chauparan, Hazaribagh and residential
certificate produced by him. The said certificate shows that the writ
petitioner had entered the said school on 23rd March, 1998 and left
the school on 9th March, 1999, while, he was studying in Class-VIII
which indicates that he had passed Class-VII Exam from the said
school. The writ petitioner was served with the show-cause notice
vide dated 31st December, 2012 to reply as to why he should not be
terminated from service as his educational certificate was obtained
from the school which was not recognized by the State Government,
as per the terms of the Advertisement and relevant provisions of the
Police Manual. The writ petitioner seems to have submitted his reply,
which however could not give satisfactory response as the school
itself was recognized by the State Government upon the
recommendation of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in the
sessions 2008-2009 vide letter dated 22nd November, 2008 issued by
the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Therefore, the
writ petitioner's service has been terminated vide Memo No.179
dated 28.01.2013.
The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order as contained
in Memo No.179 dated 28.01.2013, appended as Annexure-7 to the
writ petition, whereby the services of the writ petitioner has been
dismissed with immediate effect, has filed the writ petition being
W.P.(S) No.5499 of 2013. But, the said writ petition was dismissed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2014,
which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.
3. The writ petitioner has taken the ground before the learned
Single Judge that the similar issue on the fact, writ petition has been
filed against the order of termination which was culminated into
letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 which was
disposed of on 07.07.2014 by giving an opportunity to the appellant
of the said case to make representation before the concerned
respondent along with the certificate of Class VIII and in turn thereof,
the concerned respondent has been directed to consider the
representation of the appellant and after affording sufficient
opportunity to the appellant pass fresh order in accordance with law.
4. According to the writ petitioner, the aforesaid order dated
07.07.2014 passed in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 has been brought to the
notice of the writ Court along with the fact that the appellant of L.P.A.
No.419 of 2013, namely, Nirmal Kumar Tiwary has already been
appointed but without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect
of the matter, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ
petition and as such, the instant intra-court appeal has been filed but
the instant appeal (LPA No.476 of 2014) has been dismissed vide
order dated 20.11.2018 by the coordinate Division Bench of this
Court.
5. The further fact transpires that the appellant has preferred civil
review being Civil Review No.69 of 2021 for review of the order
dated 20.11.2018 passed in L.P.A. No.476 of 2014 on the ground
that the order passed by the another coordinate Division Bench of
this Court on 07.07.2014 in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 has not been
considered which is exactly on similar facts and circumstances.
A coordinate Division Bench of this Court has allowed the
review vide order dated 22.11.2022 by restoring the L.P.A. No.476 of
2014 to its original file and thereby the appeal has been listed today
for hearing.
6. Ms. Isha Khanna, assisted by Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by
referring to the order dated 22.11.2022 passed in Civil Review No.69
of 2021 that it has been admitted that the fact of L.P.A. No.419 of
2013 is exactly similar to that of the fact of instant appeal, as would
appear from the relevant paragraphs of the order dated 22.11.2022
passed in Civil Review No.69 of 2021 (Sunil Kumar Pandey Vrs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein, the reference of the aforesaid
admission made on behalf of the State represented by the learned
Advocate General, is required to be referred which reads as under:-
"11. This Court put a specific query that why
even in spite of specific direction passed by this
Court, no para-wise reply has been filed. Further,
why specific stand has not been taken as to
whether the order passed by the coordinate
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419 of
2013 dated 07.07.2014, appended as Annexure-9
to the memorandum of appeal has not been dealt
with taking a view as to whether the order passed
by coordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419
of 2013 is squarely covering the case of the writ
petitioner or is different on fact.
12. The matter was taken over by the learned
Advocate General to assist this Court on the
aforesaid query.
13. The learned Advocate General has
considered Annexure-9, as appended to L.P.A.
No.476 of 2014 and fair enough to submit that
after going through the factual aspect involved in
this case as also the fact as narrated in the order
passed by the coordinate Division Bench of this
Court in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 are exactly
similar."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, therefore,
submits that since it is now admitted on behalf of the State that the
fact involved in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 is exactly similar to that of
L.P.A. No.476 of 2014, therefore, the order of termination is required
to be interfered with by quashing and setting it aside.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P.-II appearing
for the State of Jharkhand has fairly submitted that he has nothing to
argue in view of the stand of the State as has been recorded on the
basis of the submission made by the learned Advocate General of
the State, as reflected in paragraph-13 of the order dated 22.11.2022
passed in Civil Review No.69 of 2021.
9. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and taking into consideration the material available on record
as also considering the admission made on behalf of the State by the
learned Advocate General who after taking into consideration
Annexure-9 as appended to L.P.A. No.476 of 2014, i.e., the order
dated 07.07.2014 passed in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 has admitted
therein that the facts as narrated in the order passed by the
coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 are
exactly similar.
10. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the instant letters
patent appeal is also fit to be disposed of by quashing and setting
aside the order of termination.
11. Accordingly, the order of termination dated 28.01.2013 issued
vide memo no.179, is hereby quashed and set aside.
12. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed.
13. Since the respondents had already taken decision with respect
to the order passed in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 (Nirmal Kumar Tiwary
Vs. State of Jharkhand), where the said Nirmal Kumar Tiwary was
having VIIIth Class pass qualification and has already reinstated in
service and here in the instant case, the writ petitioner-appellant is
having intermediate pass qualification and as such, he is also to be
given similar treatment.
14. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned G.P.-II appearing for the State has
submitted that here in the instant case also, the writ petitioner-
appellant may be given liberty to file representation before the
authority concerned along with the certificate of intermediate for its
consideration on the end of the respondents.
15. But, we are of the view that since the learned Advocate
General has accepted that the case of the writ petitioner is exactly
similar to that of case of appellant in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013, wherein,
the coordinate Division Bench of this Court has passed the order,
after quashing and setting aside the order of termination, giving
liberty to the appellant of the aforesaid appeal to file representation
along with the certificate for its consideration and in pursuant thereto,
the respondent has considered the claim of the appellant of the said
appeal and has appointed him to the post.
16. Hence, the submission which has been made on behalf of the
State that the writ petitioner-appellant of the present case may also
be given liberty to file representation before the authority concerned
for taking decision and if it will be allowed, the same will cause
undue delay as also not proper for the reason that on the similar
issue, the decision has already been taken by appointing the
appellant of L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 considering the higher
qualification of having Class VIII, while herein, the writ petitioner of
the instant case is having with the qualification of intermediate,
therefore, it would be unjust and improper to direct the writ petitioner
to again approach before the authority to take decision as had been
taken in the light of the order passed in L.P.A. No.419 of 2013 on
07.07.2014 by reinstating the appellant of the said L.P.A. No.419 of
2013.
17. The State since has admitted that the case of the writ
petitioner-appellant is exactly similar to that of case of appellant of
L.P.A. No.419 of 2013, rather, it has been submitted that the case of
the writ petitioner is even on better footing on the basis of the higher
qualification having been obtained by the writ petitioner of the
present case, therefore, it is not proper on the part of the State to
raise the issue to grant liberty to the writ petitioner to again approach
before the respondents for taking decision on their end.
18. Accordingly, the aforesaid submission is hereby rejected.
19. In the result, the writ petitioner is directed to be reinstated in
service forthwith.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since
there is no laches on the part of the appellant, therefore, the back-
wages and consequential benefits may also be directed to be paid.
21. However, objection to that effect has been made on behalf of
learned counsel appearing for the State.
22. This Court, on appreciation of the submission on this regard is
of the view that it would be in the ends of justice, if such liberty will
be granted to the writ petitioner to raise the issue before the
concerned respondents for taking decision on their end in
accordance with law.
23. Accordingly, the writ petitioner-appellant is at liberty to make
due representation before the competent authority of the State for
making claim of the back-wages along with other consequential
benefits.
24. If such claim will be made, the competent authority of the State
will take decision in accordance with law preferably within the period
of three months' from the date of receipt/production of copy of this
order.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
A.F.R
Rohit/-
