IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.722 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, NEW DELHI 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, DIGHA COMPLEX, ASHIANA DIGHA ROAD, PATNA 5. THE COMMANDANT-CUM-DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY 147 BATTALION, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, KASHIPUR, SILCHAR (ASSAM) 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT-CUM- ENQUIRY OFFICER 147 BATTALION, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, KASHIPUR, SILCHAR (ASSAM). ---------------RESPONENTS/APPELLANTS Versus MANOJ KUMAR PRASAD S/O SRI BHAGWAN GOND R/O VILL.- YOGIA, P.S.- BRAHAMPUR, DISTT.- BUXAR.-------PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. ----------- 2 20-04-2010 I.A. No.3834 of 2010. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants as also upon taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application the delay of 98 days in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No.3834 of 2010 is accordingly allowed. L.P.A. No.722 of 2010. 2 In this intra court appeal the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14960 of 2009 filed by one Manoj Kumar Prasad has been assailed by taking a ground that the learned Single Judge did not allow the respondents- appellants to file their counter affidavit and consequently the learned Single Judge has committed an error in giving a direction for reconsideration of case of the respondent-writ petitioner. Mr. Rashid Izhar, learned counsel for the appellants have tried to explain that from the caste certificate of the respondent-writ petitioner it would be clear that he had obtained employment in Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) by furnishing false caste certificate. He has tried to impress upon us that though the respondent-writ petitioner belongs to a backward caste, but he has obtained employment by producing a forged caste certificate of scheduled tribe. He has also expressed apprehension that in terms of the direction given by the learned Single Judge the earlier findings recorded by the authorities of the C.R.P.F. with regard to 3 the respondent-writ petitioner having obtained employment by playing fraud has been water down. We have perused the materials on record and would find that all the aforementioned apprehensions of learned counsel for the appellants are wholly misconceived. From reading of the order it would be clear that the learned Single Judge has not disturbed the original order of dismissal of the respondent-writ petitioner dated 28.12.2007, being Annexure-5 to the writ application, nor has he in any manner questioned the findings recorded in the appellate order dated 10.2.2009 affirming the original order dated 28.12.2007. The learned Single Judge, in fact, has noted the various submissions of learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and has observed as follows:- “In the circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that petitioner should assail the original order dated 28.12.2007, Annexure-5 and the appellate order dated 10.2.2009, Annexure-6 by filing revision petition before the Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Respondent no.3, who should consider the reinstatement of the petitioner in the light of the circular of the State of Bihar as contained in Annexures- 2 and 3 as also caste certificate dated 7.7.2009 Annexure-4 with all consequential benefit, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt 4 of the revision petition along with a certified copy of this order.” Since the learned Single Judge has not given any finding on the submission of respondent-writ petitioner as with regard to authenticity/correctness of any of the caste certificate and has only left him to avail the remedy of revision, there would be nothing for us to interfere with the said order. In our considered view, the Inspector General of C.R.P.F. has only been directed to consider the legality and propriety of the original order dated 28.12.2007 and the appellate order dated 10.2.2009 in the revision to be filed by the respondent-writ petitioner. That being so, we find that apprehension of the appellants as expressed by the learned counsel representing them before us has no justification. With the aforementioned observations this appeal stands disposed of. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)