In L.P.A No. 514 of 2015, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that despite counsel's assertion of factual uniqueness regarding the appellant's name entry in the merit list, the case lacked substance and was similar to previous dismissed petitions.
First appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 514 of 2015
Anirudh Kumar son of Siya Saran Singh resident of village – Nawadih PO & PS Waajirganj, District Gaya Bihar Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Project Building Dhurwa, Ranchi PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Project Building Dhurwa, Ranchi PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 4.The Superintendent of Police, Koderma, PO & PS Koderma District Koderma
Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
For the Petitioners/Appellant : M/s.Delip Jerath,A.Vats, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Vikas Kumar, JC to AAG
Dated : 1st August, 2016 Per Virender Singh, C.J. :
In fact, three writ petitions being W.P (S) Nos.3854/2007, 5447/2007 and 6261/2008 came to be dismissed together, vide order dated 31st July, 2015 by learned Single Judge. Out of those three writ petitions, two L.P.As arisen out of W.P (S) Nos.3854/2007 and 5447/2007 have already been dismissed by this Court relying on judgment of this Court rendered in L.P.A No.486/2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
3. Mr.Jerath, learned counsel for the appellant, in order to distinguish the case of the appellant from that of other two writ petitions clubbed together, states that in fact, the appellant is not one who was the wrong doer, rather he is the one in whose place one Madhukar Kumar had entered the merit list, as one finds from the impugned order itself.
4. We have gone through the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.4 in this regard and find in para 11 that in place of
Madhukar Kumar, name of the appellant was entered and his case is at par with that of other 112 candidates. It appears that inadvertently it is mentioned in the impugned order that in place of the appellant, name of Madhukar Kumar was entered. Being that the factual position in this case, as one finds from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the case of the appellant is also similar on facts to that of other petitioners in W.P (S) Nos.3854/2007 and 5447/2007 in which regard L.P.As filed by them have already been dismissed.
We, finding no substance in the instant appeal, dismiss the
same at this stage.
(Virender Singh, C.J.)
(Shree Chandrashekhar,J.)
dey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this case is distinguishable from previous writ petitions dismissed relying on L.P.A No.486/2015 given the factual variation regarding the appellant's entry in the merit list.
Anirudh Kumar
The State of Jharkhand
Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand
Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel)
Superintendent of Police, Koderma
Virender Singh
Shree Chandrashekhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
