IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3905 of 2011 Surajdeo Ram ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL For the petitioner : M/s Jay Shankar Tripathi, V.K. Dubey, Advocates For the State : J.C. to G.P.III th 02: Dated 14 September, 2011 1.
The present writ petition has been filed only with vindictive nature
and with all malafide intention that the petitioner could not get
compassionate appointment because his uncle was working with the
respondents. Earlier a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 27 of 2005, was
filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 6th
January, 2005 annexed at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition.
Thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 67 of 2005 was
preferred, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2nd January,
2006 (at Annexure2 to the memo of the present petition). Now, this writ
petition has been preferred because respondent no. 3 has been appointed
on the ground that respondent no. 3 has submitted two date of birth
certificates, one is dated 5th August, 1985 and another is 6th August, 1988
on the basis of Annexure3 series.
2. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, at this stage, I am not inclined to entertain this
writ petition in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Prima facie, the petitioner has no locus standi to
file this writ petition. No any objection has been raised by the respondents
against the appointment of respondent no. 3. How the petitioner got the
certificate of the date of birth of somebody else is not reflected in the
memo of the present petition.
3. In these sets of circumstances, no relief, as prayed for in the memo of
the present petition, is granted. Moreover, the petitioner’s case for
appointment has already been rejected in the earlier writ petition as well as
in the earlier Letters Patent Appeal. Prima facie, it appears that the
petitioner is unable to get the job and therefore, he has preferred this writ
petition so that respondent no. 3 job may also be withdrawn.
4. There is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby,
( D.N. Patel, J. )