Tripurari Singh vs State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2668 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Tripurari Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 February, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          W.P.(S) No. 4298 of 2014

           Tripurari Singh, son of Sri Saryu Singh, resident of Village: Sokra,
           P.O: Chainpur, P.S: Chainpur, Dist: Palamau, Jharkhand.
                                                         ...     ...     Petitioner
                                    Versus
      1.   State of Jharkhand.
      2.   Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi,
           P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi.
      3.   The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Medini
           Nagar, P.O. & P.S.: Medini Nagar, Dist: Palamau.
      4.   Chairman Selection Board-cum-Superintendent of Police, Palamau,
           P.O. & P.S.: Medini Nagar, Dist: Palamau.

                                                  ...         ...        Respondents
                            ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Ms. Priti Priyamvada, AC to GP-V

---

09/14.02.2025

1. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Driver Constable in the district of Palamau as he comes within the zone of consideration having declared successful.

And/or

b) Pass such writ/order/direction as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordance with law."

3. The learned counsel for the State has referred to the counter affidavit's paragraph 12 to submit that the petitioner has submitted two application forms for his appointment on the post of Police Driver with two different date of birth and therefore, he was allotted two different roll numbers i.e Roll No. 639 and 107. However, the advertisement No. 1 of 2010 strictly mentioned that the candidate has to apply only in one district which he prefers. The learned counsel

submits that in such circumstances the Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner may not be granted.

4. The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 annexed to the counter affidavit and has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the aforesaid L.P.A.

5. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed.

6. Considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 with analogous cases decided on 27th June, 2014 this Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for the writ petitioner to make two applications by giving two different date of birth. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to issue any Mandamus in this case as prayed for.

7. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.

8. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-