Surajdeo Ram vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 September, 2011

Jharkhand High Court
Surajdeo Ram vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 14 September, 2011
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI                                              
                          W.P.(S) No. 3905 of 2011   
       Surajdeo Ram                             ...   Petitioner
        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     
        02: Dated 14    September, 2011


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preferred, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2nd January, 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. )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *