TRILOKI KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-11-44
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on November 09,2009

Triloki Kumar Singh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the relief of certiorari to quash the letter dated 1.12.2005, Annexure -4 to the writ application, whereby, the petitioner was informed that his claim for candidature for appointment on the post of Driver -Constable has come to an end for the reason that the petitioner has not reported at Police Centre, Hazaribagh till 25.10.05.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the respondent as the Driver -Constable at Hazaribagh for which he applied for the said post. After the selection of the petitioner, a letter dated 18.8.05 was issued informing him his selection and he was directed to appear on 21.8.05 alongwith his testimonials and for a medical examination before the Police Centre, Hazaribagh. The petitioner had been suffering from Jaundice since 17.8.05 and he preferred a representation dated 30.9.05 to the respondent No. 2 requesting therein that he may be given one month's time to submit his joining. Thereafter, the respondent also issued a letter on 21.10.05 by which, the petitioner was informed and directed to be present at Police Centre, Hazaribagh alongwith all educational certificates, Caste certificate etc. on 25.10.05 at Police Centre, Hazaribagh but the petitioner did not report according to the communication made to him. Again, the respondent sent a letier dated 1.12.2005, whereby, the petitioner was informed that he had not appeared at Police Centre, Hazaribagh by 25.10.05 and no information with regard to the presence was sent, therefore, it was treated that the petitioner is not interested for the service on the said post and the other person would be appointed. Thereafter, no representation has been moved for seeking further time by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate me any other representation, except the representation made on 30.9.05, Annexure -2 to the writ application, which has. been made for seeking further time. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;


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