UMESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-12-64
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on December 16,2009

UMESH PANDEY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner was terminated from the service on 28.8.1988. He filed a Writ Petition before this Court alongwith two others being C.W.J.C. No. 2249 of 1990(R). By order dated 23.11.1990, the said Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn considering the fact that the respondents were considering the cases of the petitioner's absorption in Government service for which, interview had already been held and they were asked to produce necessary documents. It was further observed in the said order that the withdrawal of the writ petition shall not be considered impediment for absorption of the petitioners in Government service if they are found to be fit if so absorbed. From perusal of Annexure -5, it appears that when an application was made by the petitioner for his re -appointment, an enquiry was made on the application made by the petitioner and all the relevant documents relating to his appointment were verified by one'Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh, In - charge, Medical Officer, who was appointed as enquiry officer. On enquiry, he found that on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, the Chief Medical Officer, Giridih had called the petitioner for interview for re -appointment by issue of letter dated 27.9.1989 and all the testimonials were verified but still the appointment could not be made. The report further reveals that the case of Satyendra Narayan Singh and Rajendra Prasad Gupta were similarly situated to the petitioner and they were reappointed on the basis of the order passed by the Supreme Court irrS.L.P. No. 9102 - 07/1990.
(3.) ON consideration of materials, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that before cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, a notice to show -cause should have been given. He further came to the conclusion that when Satyendra Narayan Singh and Rajendra Gupta were appointed on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court as well as of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, then the petitioner should have also been appointed since his case was similarly situated. He further came to the conclusion that, in the Primary Health Centre, Gomia, the post was still vacant and available.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.