Jharkhand Court February 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sanjay Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR655(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In both the writ petitions, common question arises out of the same factual foundation. They have been heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to appoint them on the posts of Junior Engineer in any of the departments.namely, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Road Construction Department or Water Resources Department on the basis of their selection and final recommendation by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C. for short) in Junior Engineer (Civil) Examination, 2005-06. They have also prayed for quashing the notifications issued by the respondents-Road Construction Department, Water Resources Department as also Drinking Water and Sanitation Department dated 22.7.2007, 18.8.2007 and 2.9.2007 respectively in the daily newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' and for issuance of appropriate and suitable directions comm...
Shri Suresh Paswan Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR674(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 1 of the writ petition.2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing Gumla District Order No. 164/04 dated 3.3.2004 (Annexure-3) and also the order contained in Memo No. 3058 dated 23.9,2004 (Annexure-6) issued from the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Head Qrs, Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the petitioner's year of birth has been fixed as 1947 in place of 1949, and the representation filed by him protesting against the said alteration has been rejected.3. It has been stated that the petitioner had appeared in the Matriculation Examination and Admit Card was issued to him in which his date of birth was mentioned as 5.5.1949. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 9.7.1969 in the District of Bhagalpur and on the date of his appointment, his year of birth was recorded as 1949.4. The petitioner being Matriculate was subsequently abs...
Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR688(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to grant work order in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the quotation submitted by the petitioner in response to the Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT), being NIT No. 01/2006-07 dated 21st August, 2006 issued by the respondents for supply of diesel pump set of 5 H.P. for the purpose of cultivation. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the subsequent NIT dated 3rd April, 2007.2. It has been stated that the said NIT was issued for supply of diesel pump of 5 H.P. having I.S.O. and B.I.S. certification having 100 Kg. maximum weight of engine. Three tenderers were found qualified. The petitioner was found as L-l and price quoted by it was Rs. 20,501/- per engine. In spite of the same, the work order has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondents have floated another tender for the same purpose and in the said tender, they have not pr...
T. Dev Roy Karji Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1122]; [2008(3)JCR77(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties on the amendment application.By filing this interlocutory application the prayer for amendment has been made on the ground that during the pendency of the writ petition an order, contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, has been passed on 23.1.2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing this application on the grounds mentioned in the petition.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this interlocutory application for amendment is allowed and it is directed to be treated as a part of the main writ application.W.P.S. No. 6218 of 20023. Heard the parties on the merit of the writ application.4. The facts in short are that the father of the petitioner namely, Samu Roy Karji was employed as Assistant in Zila Parishad, Chaibasa and he died-in-harness on 5.11.1991. According to the petitioner, he made an application for on 9.8.199...
Satya Narayan Singh Vs. Ranchi University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR996]; [2008(3)JCR312(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier in WPS No. 2346/2001 making a grievance that though he retired from the service on 1.2.1994 but he was neither allowed the benefits of time bound promotion, nor his pension was fixed nor the retiral benefits were given on revised scale of pay.3. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12.6.2001 as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University for such relief by filing a representation and the respondents were directed to determine the question relating grant of selection grade scale and retiral benefits in the revised scale within a period of three months. It was further directed that if any amount was found payable, the same should be paid thereof.4. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made a detailed representation before the Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University on 27.6.2001 ...
Surendra Nath Sharma Vs. Rajendra Kumar Sharma and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(56)BLJR1355
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8.3.2007 passed by Sub-Judge-VII, Deoghar in Title Partition Suit No. 32/2000 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner along with proforma respondents-defendants.2. The question that arose for consideration is as to whether daughter being a co-parcener is a necessary party in a suit for partition of ancestral co-parcenary property.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiff-respondents Ist set filed petition suit No. 32/2000 for partition of joint family ancestral property. Defendants-respondents No. 2 and 3 contested the suit by filing written statement taking various pleas including non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner-defendant filed a petition for adding Savitri Devi, Usha Devi and Mina Devi as defendants in the suit on the ground that they are co-parceners having equal right title and interest over the ancestral pro...
Apurba Kumar Choudhary and ors. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR70(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5199 of 2002 on 27.6.2007.2. The case of the appellants before the writ court was that a large number of vacancies for the post of Assistant Teachers in the Primary, Elementary and Middle Schools of Sehebganj, (North Santhal Pargena District) existed by notification dated 7.3.1981 and the applications were invited to be submitted for the said posts by 5 9.1981. Appellants being eligible and possessing required qualifications; applied for the pest of Assistant Teachers. The interviews were held in between August to September, 1981, whereafter, the appellants along with others were selected and their names appeared in the panel of successful candidates. Accordingly, they were appointed by the competent authority as per detailed chart. After joining to the assignment they continued working as teachers to the sat...
Amriul Ansari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(1)JCR631(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Mr. Amriul Ansari, who was working as a peon in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, the respondents, for three years, was stopped from service. Against the same, the petitioner earlier filed an application--O.A. No. 131 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking for his reinstatement and regularisation. The Tribunal, after hearing the petitioner, rejected his prayer, however, directed the Kendriya Vidyalaya to consider his fresh appointment in the 'D' Group if any vacancy arises. With that order, the petitioner approached the Kendriya Vidyalaya again, but the said request was rejected by the Kendriya Vidyalaya stating that vacant post of Group 'D' are being obtained through private agencies as per rules and as such the petitioner was advised to contact the private agency for his engagement for the post. As against the said order, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 258 of 2004 before the Tribunal complaining that direction, earlier given by the Tribunal, has ...
Pushpa Kumari and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR170(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order issued vide Memo No. 119, dated 17th May, 2007, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra has suddenly cancelled the appointment of all the selected Sevikas and Sahayikas in one stroke of pen on the ground that the then Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), namely, Smt. Sheela Kumari, who had made the said appointments, was arrested by the Vigilance Department in connection with a case of alleged irregularity.2. It has been stated that the petitioners have got no concern with any such irregularity committed by then CDPO. They were duly appointed on the basis of selection made by the decision of Aam Sabha. There is no allegation that any irregularity was committed by them or that they are party to any such irregularity. No notice or opportunity of hearing was even given to the petitioners before cancelling their appointment. The impugned sudden cancellation of the petitioners appo...
Dr. Pramod Kumar Jha Vs. Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: [2008(2)JCR155a(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order, issued by the University vide Memo No. VBU/2567/06 dated 4.4.2006. by which the petitioner has been sought to be transferred from the Department of Commerce, R.S.P. College, Jharia to the Department of Commerce, J.J. College, Jhumritelaiya by way of punishment and also preventing him to claim his seniority on teachers already posted in the Department of Commerce, J.J. College, Jhumritelaiya. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order passed by the Chancellor of the University dated 18.6.2007, whereby the petitioner's appeal has been rejected ex parte and without giving any opportunity of hearing.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order, by way of punishment, has been passed without giving him any notice and opportunity of representation/hearing. It has been stated that no enquiry was held in his presence. By the impugned order, the petit...