- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner, interalia, has prayed for quashing of memo no.1554 dated 5.07.2012 passed by the respondent concerned in pursuance to the order passed in order dated 12.04.2012 in W.P.(S) No. 6636 of 2002 and for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Dalpati in view of the provisions of Jharkhand Gram Raksha Dal Niyamawali,2001.
(2.) Sans details of the facts as averred in the writ application in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Dalpati on 20.01.1997 by the Executive Committee of Dodan Gram Panchayat and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his joining before the Block Development Officer, Ghaghra and since then he had been working to the said post, but, the appointment of the petitioner was not confirmed by respondent no. 4, District Panchayati Raj Officer, Ghaghra, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent authorities for confirmation of appointment to the post of Dalpati. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this court in W.P.(S) No. 6636 of 2002 which has been disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2012 with a direction to the Director, Panchayati Raj, Jharkhand for taking final decision in the matter by considering rule 6 r/w Rule 29 of the Jharkhand Gram Panchayat Raksha Dal Niyamawali, 2001 in context with letter no. 209 dated 01.08.2011. It was also observed that the Director, Panchayati Raj Jharkhand shall consider the same and take decision on this issue within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid decision the writ petition was disposed of. In view of the order passed by this Court, the respondent has passed an order dated 05.07.2012, vide Annexure3 to the writ application, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.07.2012, the petitioner approached this Court under article 226 of The Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per Contra the respondent has filed a counteraffidavit controverting the averments made in the writ application. It has been submitted that in compliance of this Court order the respondent no. 4, the then District Panchayati Raj Officer, Gumla has not confirmed the candidature of the petitioner. After considering all the aspects, Director, Panchayati Raj Jharkhand vide memo no. 1554 dated 05.07.2012 came to the conclusion that the petitioner's appointment on the post of Dalpati was not valid in the eyes of law. Competent authority from perusal of the reports sent by the District Panchayati Raj Officer came to the conclusion that the selection of the petitioner to the post of Dalpati was not confirmed by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Gumla. It has further been submitted that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S.) No. 6636 of 2002 dated 12.4.2012 a reasoned order has already been been passed by the Director, Panchayati Raj, Jharkhand after scrutiny of all relevant papers and reports of the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Gumla as well as the prevalent law in this regard.;