Dismissed

Kamal Kishor Bari v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Aug 2016LPA/49/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judgment condones a delay in filing the accompanying Letters Patent Appeals (LPA), disposing of it. The Court then dismisses the LPA upholding the Single Judge's order rejecting the appellant's candidature for a Police Driver post due to expiry of his driving license. No substantive reasons for dismissal are provided in this order.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 4822 of 2016 stands disposed of; L.P.A. No. 49 of 2016 is dismissed at the threshold.

Kamal Kishor Bari Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 49 of 2016

¶2

With

¶3

I.A. No. 4822 of 2016

¶4

Kamal Kishor Bari Son of Yashpal Bari, resident of village Hobalkand, P.OKundiaghar, P.S-Kumardungi, Dist. West Singhbhum ..... Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Inspector General of Police, East Singhbhum, PO & PS-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Dist- East Singhbhum

¶8

Sr. Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum,PO & PS-Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Dist- East Singhbhum ... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶10

¶11

For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, JC to G.P.VI

¶12

¶13

05/ 02nd August, 2016 Per Virender Singh, C.J.:

¶14

I.A. No. 4822 of 2016

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application, and there being no serious objection from the other side, the delay in filing the accompanied appeal stands condoned.

¶16

I.A. No.4822 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

L.P.A. No. 49 of 2016

¶18

The rejection of the candidature of the appellant-writ petitioner is on account of invalid license shown by him for getting the employment and the rejection faced by him gave him the cause to move the Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No.4556 of 2013, which now stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.12.2015 by the learned Single Judge.

¶19

The learned Writ Court has dismissed the case of the appellantwrit petitioner thus ;

¶20

“From the facts of the case noticed herein above, it is evident that petitioner got driving license to drive Transport Vehicle only after his license was converted as such on 5.3.2010 by the issuing authority i.e. District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, which is enclosed to the writ petition as part of Annexure-4. Petitioner on the strength of the license to drive motorcycle obtained in the year 2004 cannot claim

¶21

eligibility to participate in the recruitment exercise for the post of Police Driver on the face of the conditions incorporated at Clause 3(gha) of the advertisement. It therefore appears that petitioner was not eligible in terms of the advertisement to claim appointment on the post of Police Driver on these facts itself.”

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and going through the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the same for our interference. Resultantly, the instant appeal is dismissed at this stage itself.

¶23

(Virender Singh, C.J.)

¶24

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶25

Sudhir/SI

Kamal Kishor Bari v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kishor Bari v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs Syed Shahab Ahmed

Raj Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Rural Development Department and Ors.

Prakash Tekriwal Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Railway and Ors.

The Union of India through the Ministry of Railway and Ors. Vs Prakash Tekriwal and Ors.

Vivek Kumar Dubey and Ors. Vs the State of Jhakrhand and Ors.