TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Lal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand.
(2.) IN the instant case the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 23.4.1998 passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure -5 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of chowkidar. The petitioner also prays for a direction upon the respondents to the effect that they may be mandated to issue a formal letter of appointment so that they give effect to the earlier order dated 27.8.1991 passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer and as contained in Annexure -2. It is not necessary for this Court to repeat the facts as pleaded in the instant case because another Hon ble Single Judge of this Court has very aptly and briefly summarized the gist of the lis which is involved herein. This order is dated 9.12.1999 and it reads thus : - - "One Pandu Bouri was appointed as chowkidar on 28th October, 1980 of Jaspur Beat No. 5/24 against which an appeal was preferred by the father of the petitioner. In 1985, the appeal was decided in his favour and matter was remitted to the SDO for fresh decision. When the matter on remand was pending, the father of the petitioner died in 1989 and the son (the petitioner) was substituted, in whose favour an order was issued on 27th August, 1991. While claim of Pandu Bouri was rejected by the SDO, he ordered to appoint the petitioner vide said order dated 27th August, 1991. It appeal 'sthat the appeal thereafter preferred by Pandu Bouri was also dismissed for default on 14th August, 1994 and the order dated 27th August, 1991 reached its finality. According to the petitioner, the order dated 27th August, 1991 should have been given effect, but the same having not acted upon he represented. It was rejected on 15th February, 1997 on the ground that the post became a civil post since 1st January, 1990 i.e. after the death of his father, with observation that no compassionate appointment be made. The appeal, thereafter, preferred by petitioner was also rejected on 23rd April, 1998 on wrong presumption, giving reference of the case of Pandu Bouri. The counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. The case may be disposed of at the stage of admission. Place the case for admission on 11th January, 2000."
(3.) UPON perusal of the aforementioned order of the Hon ble Single Judge, it is evident that after consideration, the respondents rejected the claim of Pandu Bouri and passed an order on 27.8.1991 as contained in Annexure -2, whereby and whereunder the matter was closed with a direction that the petitioner would be appointed. This is also evident upon reading the contents of Annexure -2 as also from the pleadings made in the writ petition. It is relevant to mention that reference to the order dated 27.8.1991 has been made specifically at paragraph 5 of the writ petition. The said paragraph 5 reads as follows: "5. That it is relevant to give the brief background of the order dated 27.8.1991 as contained in Annexure -2, vide an order dated 28.10.1960 passed in chowkidari seha case No. 7/78 -79 the respondent No. 3 was pleased to appoint one Pandu Bouri as chowkidar for beat No. 5/24." ;