IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19194 of 2011 Pappu Kumar Son Of Sri Bishun Deo Prasad Yadav Resident Of Village - Navtoliya Bindwara, P.O.- Munger, P.S.- Kashim Nagar, District- Munger …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Department Of Railway, New Delhi 2. The Director General, Indian Railways, New Delhi 3. The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District-Vaishali 4. The Security Commissioner-Cum-Principal Railway Protection Force Training Centre, East Central Railway, Mokamaghat, District- Patna 5. The Assistant Security Commissioner, Training Centre, Mokamaghat, East Central Railway, Mokamaghat, District- Patna …Respondents ----------- 03. 14.11.2011 Petitioner is a trainee in Railway Protection Force (RPF). He is aggrieved by order dated 30.6.2010, passed by Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, East Central Railways, Hajipur as contained in Anenxure-1. On perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that he has been discharged from service in terms of Rules 65.3 and 65.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. There is no dispute that Rules itself provide remedy of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order, made diverse submissions in order to convince the Court that the order was pre-conceived and pre-determined. It is contended that out of 206 trainees taking the internal examination, more than 181 had failed to qualify. He also tried to impress that examination was not conducted in the manner it was supposed to be conducted. In para 33 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted as under:- “That it is submitted that the petitioner had even preferred appeal before the Director General, R.P.F., New Delhi on 26.7.2010 but no order has yet been passed.” 2 Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that although memo of appeal has not been attached with the writ petition, but considering the averment made in the said paragraph the matter be disposed of directing the appropriate appellate authority to consider and dispose of the pending appeal in accordance with law within a time frame. Since the Rule itself provides an appeal which the petitioner has already invoked, this court is, therefore, not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter at this stage. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be filing additional grounds of appeal within three weeks and the authority concerned may be directed to consider and dispose of his pending appeal by a reasoned order within a time-frame. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of materials on record, this Court is satisfied that present application be disposed of by the following order:- Let the petitioner file additional grounds of appeal, if any, together with a copy of the present order before the Director General, Railway Protection Force, New Delhi within four weeks from today whereafter the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within five weeks thereafter under intimation to the petitioner. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )