Ritesh Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand

--- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- : Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents 11/29.03.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

a) For the issuance of appropriate writ, order/ orders, direction/ directions writ/ writs for quashing the Chatra District order no. 548/ 07. being memo no, 376/Ka dated 29.05.2007 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Chatra whereby and where under the petitioner has Dismissed/ removed from the service where he was working on the post of Constable. b) For issuance of any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions, as your Lordships deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law.

A specific query was put by this Court with regard to para no. 6 of

the writ petition, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was issued Admit Card bearing Roll No. 8181A, as to why the petitioner has not annexed the admit card. This has a bearing in this case because the allegation against the petitioner is that he was appointed by interpolation of his roll number as 8181A by way of addition of roll number 8181A after roll number 8181 in the master chart.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken specific instructions from his client and has submitted before this court that the petitioner is unable to produce the Admit Card allotted to him having Roll No. 8181A. He also submits that his client has instructed that he has lost the admit card during the physical test. However admittedly, no such statement has been made in the writ petition.

At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. 2

Counsel for the respondents has raised objection to the withdrawal of the writ petition. He submits that the impugned order has been passed in the year 2007 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2011. He submits that the petitioner admittedly is not in a position to produce the admit card with Roll No. 8181A which has a bearing in the matter. He also submits that the present case is a matter of illegal appointment through interpolation and the writ petition has been filed after lapse of more than five years from the cause of action.

The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the petitioner initially accepted the impugned order, but subsequently certain orders were passed by this court in W.P.(S) Nos. 4032 of 2007, 3374 of 2007 and W.P.(S) No. 3726 of 2007 on 16.12.2009 and the writ petition has been filed by way of afterthought and in such circumstances, the petitioner may not be permitted to withdraw this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to a judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others) dated 17.10.2014 and submits that delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India and if a person choses to sit over the matter and then wakes up after the decision of the court in other case , then the person cannot stand to benefit.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)