Sunil Prasad Singh vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities to immediately appoint the petitioner and accept his joining in pursuance to the judgment dated 27.11.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in CWJC No.2338 of 1998(R ).

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-5, which is an application given before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, as per the advertisement published in the year 2006; however, the said annexure has been disputed by the respondents in paragraph no.13 of their counter affidavit.

Learned counsel for the State contented that the writ application is not maintainable on the ground of delay and further denied the working of the petitioner with the department which has been categorically stated in paragraph no.11 of their counter affidavit.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the counter affidavit it appears that there is a disputed question of fact with regard to the specific statement of the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement he had duly applied before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and the said Annexure-5 has been denied by the respondent authority by treating it as forged and fabricated.

In this view of the matter and without going into the merits of the case, I hereby dispose of the instant application by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.5 within a period of two months from today, if so advised. If any such representation is filed before the respondent no.5, he shall pass a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law, rule regulation and policy decision of the Government.

With the aforesaid observation and direction the instant application stands disposed of.