Dismissed

Md.Rafique Ansari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC20 Aug 2019WPC/3315/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought appointment as 'Dalpati' relying on a 2006 memo and prior selection. The state contended lack of guidelines and barred relief citing prior appellate orders dismissing identical petitions. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding no new relief could be granted.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed and no appointment order or injunction was granted.

Md.Rafique Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No.3315 OF 2010

¶3

1.Md. Rafique Ansari.

2.Suresh Thakur

3.Anta Kisku

4.Mahabir Thakur

. Petitioners

Vs.

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶10

2.The Director, Panchayat Raj, Ranchi at Project Building,Dhurwa Ranchi,Dist. Ranchi.

¶11

3.The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj

¶12

4.The District Panchayat Raj Officer,Sahibganj at Kachhari Road, P.O and P.S and Dist. Ranchi.

¶13

5.The Block Development Officer, Taljhari, P.O and P.S Taljhari Dist.Sahibganj

¶14

6.The Block Development Officer,Pathna P.O & P.S Barharwa Dist. Sahibganj

¶15

….. Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr Din Dayal Saha . Adv.

¶18

For the State Mr Amritanshu Singh(A.C to SC Mines II)

¶19

Order No.10 : Dated 20th August, 2019

¶20

Heard Mr Din Dayal Saha learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr Amritanshu Singh (A.C to SC Mines II)for the State.

¶21

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for appointing them as “Dalpati” in view of Memo No. 542 dated 4.12.2006

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners were selected on the post of “Dalpati” in the year 1996. He submits that respondent no.4 wrote a letter to the Block Development Officer vide memo no. 482 dated 20.9.2006 to submit a report after verification of the selection of the petitioners and pursuant to that, concerned B.D.O, after proper vitrification of the selection of the petitioners,submitted a report and recommended the name of the petitioners for appointment of “Dalpati” vide order dated 14.11.2006. He further submits that the petitioners represented before the authorities concerned, but they have not received any communication with regard to their representation. He further

¶23

-2-

¶24

submits that pursuant to the enquiry report from the authority concerned, a letter dated 4.12.2006 was issued to the respondent no.2 regarding guidelines for appointment of .Md. Rafique Ansari ,Suresh Thakur, Anta Kisku and Mahabir Thakur, who are the petitioners in this writ petition

¶25

The learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that the Block Development Officer Barhait also submitted his report dated 22.11.2006 with a report of Panchayat Supervisor Pathna to District Panchayat Raj Officer Sahibganj in which it is stated that Mangal Tudu of Panchayat Kherwa has been selected as Dalapati in Kherwa Panchayat Executive Committee. He further submits that District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sahibganj has also given a reminder letter dated 19.4.2007 to the Director Panchayat Raj,Ranchi for guideline regarding the appointment of the petitioners as Dalpati in which clearly stated that due to absence of guidelines their appointment could not be made in Dalpati. He further submits that the petitioners cannot claim for appointment on the post of Dalpati as the petitioners' recommendation by the executive committee of the Panchayat was not sent to the District Panchayat Raj Officer within 15 days nor any approval has been given by the concerned District Panchayat Raj officer on the appointment of Dalpati. He further submits that the writ petitioners had not been appointed earlier as Dalpati and the said matter came before the authority in the year 2006 then they verified the same and asked for guideline for appointment of the writ petitioners as Dalpati but till now no guidelines has been received from the government for fresh appointment of Dalpati. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in which order of the Coordinate Bench and Division Bench have been annexed wherein the identical matter has been decided and the writ petition was dismissed which was affirmed by the Division Bench.

¶26

In view of the order dated 22.11.2012 passed in W.P(S) No. 6446 of 2012 and order dated 21.6.2018 passed in L.P.A No. 19 of 2013 no relief can be extended in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶28

Md.Rafique Ansari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Rafique Ansari And Ors. v. 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

Suchand Singh Sardar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Narayan Prasad Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ram Kishore Thakur Vs Human Resource Development

Hardeo Ram Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Herman Minz Vs Human Resource Development

Shyama Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.