JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Pakur District Force Order No. 593/18, dated 21.04.2018, passed by respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder, he has been terminated from the service. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in the service with all consequential benefits.

3. According to the petitioner, he submitted online application mentioning his category as ‘Backward Class-2’ for appearing in the Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination, 2015. After being declared successful, petitioner appeared for counselling along with Caste Certificate dated 28.09.2016 showing him to be Backward Class-1 category and local Residence Certificate dated 29.11.2016. At the time of counselling, petitioner submitted an application with a request to treat him as Backward Class-I in view of the fact that at the time of filling up application form, he had inadvertently mentioned his caste as Backward Class-2 instead of Backward Class-1. After the counselling, petitioner was asked to appear for re-medical checkup on 15.05.2017. Thereafter, petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable on 01.07.2017. After his joining, petitioner received a letter dated 23.03.2018 from Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission which was duly replied by him on 05.04.2018. Thereafter, petitioner was terminated from the service by Pakur District Force Order No. 593/18, Dated 21.04.2018, issued vide Memo No. 554, dated 21.04.2018, passed by respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved by impugned order, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

4. Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and has been passed in a mechanical manner without affording opportunity or hearing. Learned counsel submits that without following the cardinal principles of natural justice, the services of the petitioner has been put to an end. Learned counsel submits that before passing any order having civil and evil consequences, an employee is entitled for hearing and in the instant case, without any show-cause, livelihood of the petitioner has been snatched. It has further been argued by learned Counsel that Rule 821 of the Jharkhand Police Manual has not been adhered to. No opportunity to defend has been given to the petitioner. Merely on the recommendations of the authorities, services of the petitioner has been put to an end. Learned counsel places heavy reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 754.

5. On the other hand Mr. Samir Sahay, AC to learned Advocate General submits that petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Referring to several Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, learned counsel submits that petitioner has been rightly terminated from the service. To buttess his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others, (2011) 12 SCC 85.

6. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for any interference. Petitioner was appointed as a Police constable after adhering the Rules of Jharkhand Police Manual. After his appointment, he was put under probation. Rule 668 of the Police Manual is very clear on this point, which reads as under:

“Rule 668 of Police Manual: Removal or reversion of officers appointed direct or promoted on probation:

The following rules shall govern first appointments and the promotion of police and ministerial officers as detailed in Appendix 41:

(a) All officers shall in the first instance be appointed or promoted on probation. Where the period of probation is not otherwise provided for in the rules it shall be for a period of two years in the case of executive