IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 4150 of 2008
...
Milan Lal Pandit ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Anil Kr. Jha, Advocate.
For the State : - Mrs. Kiran Burman, J.C. to S.C. (Mines).
...
3/24.02.2009
Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to the
Respondent No. 3 to issue an appointment letter in the name of the petitioner on
the post of the Typist-cum-Copy Writer within the Deoghar Collectariate through
the office of the Respondent No. 5, namely the District Establishment Branch,
Deoghar Collectariate.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the Respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s
candidature for his appointment was considered by the Respondent No. 2, namely
the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka
who had recommended for the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Typist-cum-
Copy Writer in the District Collectariate, Deoghar. The recommendation was duly
forwarded for compliance to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. However,
instead of issuing a letter of appointment to the post of Typist-cum-Copy Writer,
the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (Respondent No. 3) had issued the
appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of the Clerk. Since no such post of
Clerk was vacant, the petitioner could not be appointed.
Learned counsel submits further that the petitioner had
been filing his representations before the Deputy Commissioner, seeking issuance
of an appropriate letter of appointment in consonance with the letter of
appointment issued by the Respondent No. 2. In pursuance to the representation, a
clarification was sought by the Respondent No. 3, from the office of the
Respondent No. 2 and ever since 1998, no response has been received on the
clarification sought for by the Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner has been
unnecessarily suffering in spite of the recommendations made in his favour by the
concerned authorities.
Learned counsel for the Respondent-State by referring to
Annexure-8, which is the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka
seeking a clarification regarding the recommendations made in favour of the
petitioner and also pointing out to the contents thereof, submits that the vacancies
existed actually for the post of Typist-cum-Copy Writer. Learned counsel submits
that a direction may be given to the Respondent No. 2 to issue appropriate order
of clarification to the Respondent No. 3 so as to enable the Respondent No. 3 to
take appropriate decision at his level, regarding issuance of appointment letter to
the petitioner.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the Respondent
No. 2 is directed to decide and issue necessary clarifications regarding the terms
of earlier recommendation made in favour of the petitioner for his appointment, in
reply to the letter (Annexure-8) and convey the same to the Respondent No. 2
within a period of three weeks from today and within three weeks from the date of
receipt of the clarification from the Respondent no. 2, the Respondent No. 3 shall
take appropriate decision in the matter of issuance of letter of appointment to the
petitioner.
With these observations this writ application stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondent-State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK