Dismissed¶26

Tripurari Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC14 Feb 2025WPC/4298/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, W.P.(S) No. 4298 of 2014, decided 14.02.2025 by Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Petitioner sought mandamus for consideration of appointment as Driver Constable in Palamau district under Advertisement No. 1 of 2010. Dismissed: petitioner had made two applications for the Police Driver post with two different dates of birth, drawing roll numbers 639 and 107, contrary to the one-district application rule; dual applications with differing dates of birth barred relief. Reliance placed on L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 (with analogous cases) decided 27.06.2014. Keywords: Driver Constable; Police Driver; dual application; different date of birth; roll number; mandamus refused; writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no scope for a writ petitioner to make two applications by giving two different dates of birth. ¶25

Tripurari Singh Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 4298 of 2014

¶3

Tripurari Singh, son of Sri Saryu Singh, resident of Village: Sokra, P.O: Chainpur, P.S: Chainpur, Dist: Palamau, Jharkhand.

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi.

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau Range, Medini Nagar, P.O. & P.S.: Medini Nagar, Dist: Palamau.

¶9

Chairman Selection Board-cum-Superintendent of Police, Palamau, P.O. & P.S.: Medini Nagar, Dist: Palamau.

¶10

… … Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

--For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : Ms. Priti Priyamvada, AC to GP-V ---

¶14

09 /14.02.2025

¶15

1. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶16

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶17

“a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ commanding upon the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Driver Constable in the district of Palamau as he comes within the zone of consideration having declared successful.

¶18

And/or

¶19

b) Pass such writ/order/direction as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordance with law.”

¶20

3. The learned counsel for the State has referred to the counter affidavit’s paragraph 12 to submit that the petitioner has submitted two application forms for his appointment on the post of Police Driver with two different date of birth and therefore, he was allotted two different roll numbers i.e Roll No. 639 and 107. However, the advertisement No. 1 of 2010 strictly mentioned that the candidate has to apply only in one district which he prefers. The learned counsel

¶21

¶22

submits that in such circumstances the Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner may not be granted.

¶23

4. The learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 annexed to the counter affidavit and has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the aforesaid L.P.A.

¶24

5. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed.

¶25

6. Considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 with analogous cases decided on 27^th June, 2014 this Court is of the considered view that there is no scope for the writ petitioner to make two applications by giving two different date of birth. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to issue any Mandamus in this case as prayed for.

¶26

7. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶27

8. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶28

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶29

Rakesh/-

¶30

Tripurari Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tripurari Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manik Napit Vs Kailash Mahatha

Shiv Chand Murmu And Ors. Vs Mati Kisku And Ors.

Bharat Gour Vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented By Deputy Commissioner

The Project Officer, Simlabahal Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Nirjhar Chakraborty Vs Union of India through the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad

Dhanraj Mandal Vs Dayal Mandal

Bahura Oraon And Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.