Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Appellate order dated 16.02.2006, passed by the Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-10) as well as the order dated 31.05.2005 of the Respondent No. 5 (Annexure-4) in which the petitioner has been dismissed and has further prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents-authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service and to pay him the consequential benefits including arrear of salary of intervening period along with statutory interest and has also prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Prohibition commanding upon the respondents authorities from making any appointment on the post of the petitioner treating as vacant.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that, in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/04, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Constable. It has been averred in the writ application that as per the said advertisement, a person, who has completed 19 years and above of age as on 01st January, 2004, was eligible to apply and the date of birth of the petitioner, according to certificate, is 13th March, 1985. It has been submitted in the writ application that the advertisement was published sometimes in the middle of 2004, so he was approaching 19 years of age. It has been stated in the writ application that the petitioner, being otherwise eligible, applied for appointment and was called to take part in the written test and physical test and having come out successful, was given offer of appointment vide Memo No. 500, dated 17.04.2005 (Annexure-1 to the writ application). It has been further averred in the writ application that the documents having been found in order, and on his reporting to the respondent No. 5, the petitioner was appointed and joined in the service. It has been further stated in the writ application that suddenly, the Superintendent of Police, Pakur initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and Inspector of Police was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who asked the petitioner to submit his report on 31st May, 2005. The charge against the petitioner was that he was 2 months 11 days less than 19 years as on 1st January, 2004, his date of birth being 13th March, 1985 and in spite of the same, he filled up the Form for appointment, which amounts to mis-leading the officer for his appointment, shows doubtful character and he is inefficient Constable. In the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer while held that the petitioner was 2 months 11 days less than 19 years as on 1st January, 2004, also held that the charges proved against the petitioner. In view of such finding, the Superintendent of Police, Pakur (Respondent No. 5) dismissed the appellant from service vide order as contained in Memo No. 771 dated 31.05.2005. It has been further averred in the writ application that pursuant to final order passed in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner filed his separate appeal before the Respondent No. 4 on 22.06.2005. It has been further stated in the writ application that petitioner preferred a writ application before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5921 of 2005 and vide order dated 01.11.2006, this Court has been pleased to dispose of the aforesaid writ application with a direction that if the appeal has been filed before the Appellate Authority, the Respondent No. 4 will dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It has been further stated in the writ application that the petitioner submitted a copy of the said order along with representation before the Respondent No. 4 on 11.11.2006 but the Respondent No. 4 has not passed any order. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per contra Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, repelling the contentions made in the writ application, wherein, it has been inter alia, submitted that the required final order on the appeal application of the petitioner has been passed by the D.I.G. of Police, Dumka, whereby the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner given by the then S.P., Pakur has been confirmed.;