Mohammad Ikhlaque vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

Heard learned counsel for appellant. This intra court appeal is directed against order of Single Bench dated 8th October, 2012, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner challenging the order of cancellation of his selection on the post of Gram Sewak, has been dismissed.

The respondents issued an advertisement in the year 1996 for the post of Gram Sewak. The petitioner appeared in written examination and was declared pass. He was called for interview. The petitioner was selected, however, the District Establishment Committee took a decision to appoint an Enquiry Committee in the matter of petitioner. The Committee gave a report against petitioner and on that basis, the selection of petitioner was cancelled and fir was also lodged against petitioner. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 8th October, 2012, hence, petitioner has preferred this intra court appeal.

Submission of learned counsel for appellant is that allegation of impersonation against appellant was found to be false during investigation of fir lodged by respondents and thereafter final report was submitted, which was accepted after protest petition. In these circumstances, it should be presumed that the allegation of impersonation was not correct, hence, learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the writ petition, which may be allowed and order of cancellation of selection of petitioner on the post of Gram Sewak be set aside.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant in the/light of reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition.

Apart from reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition, it is relevant to mention that order, constituting an Enquiry Committee by District Establishment Committee, was not challenged by appellant, rather he appeared before the Enquiry Committee and gave answers to the questions before Enquiry Committee. It is also relevant to mention that enquiry report was also not challenged, which was made basis of cancellation of selection of appellant. It is also relevant to mention that mere inclusion of name in the selection list does not give any right to the appellant, unless an appointment order itself is issued. Learned counsel for appellant fairly and frankly admitted that appointment order was not issued to the appellant before cancellation of his selection. We have also considered the reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition. In our view, the reasons assigned by learned Single judge are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for by this Court in this intra court appeal. We find no merit in this intra court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.