Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 370 (JHR)

Loknath Ram v. State Of Bihar

2001-06-09

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhya, J. 1. All these cases relate to appointment to the posts of Constable in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/98 for different districts of the State of Bihar, as was existing prior to 15th November, 2000. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by common order at this stage. 2. Petitioners of CWJC Nos. 2451. 2452, 2453. 2466, 2477. 2584, 2611, 2615. 2617, 2641, 2710, 2763, 2804, 2844 and 2845 of 2000(R) claim to have appeared before the Selection Board, constituted under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police. West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, for their appointments in Singhbhum Range. Petitioners of CWJC Nos. 2614. 2619 and 2620 of 2000 (R) claim to have appeared before the Selection Board, constituted under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Chatra for their appointments in the districts of Hazaribagh and Chatra. Petitioners of CWJC Nos. 124, 2288 and 2324 of 2000 (R) claim to have appeared before the Selection Board, constituted under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga, for their appointments in the North Chhotanagpur Division. Petitioner of CWJC No. 2721 of 2000 (R) claims to have appeared before the Selection Board, constituted under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police. Nalanda (for the Coal Field Range. North Chhotanagpur Division) for his appointment in the District of Dhanbad. 3. All the petitioners applied in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/98, appeared in the: written/physical test and claim to have been selected for such appointments. Their grievance is that persons, having lesser height than the petitioners, belonging to their respective categories, have been appointed discriminating the petitioners. 4. Some of the petitioners have also raised dispute relating to measurement of height, as was made by the authorities/Selection Board(s). 5. In the cases where separate counter affidavits have been filed, the respondents have disputed such claim that persons having lesser height have been appointed. They have taken plea that the petitioners having not come within the zone of appointment, having lesser height than the cut off height up to which offer of appointment has been given, have not been appointed. For example, in the counter affidavit, filed in the case of Nand Kishore Pandey (CWJC No. 2615/2000(R)), the respondents have stated that the height of the petitioner is 178 CM. who belongs to general category and the petitioner does not possess certificate of Homeguaid training. For example, in the counter affidavit, filed in the case of Nand Kishore Pandey (CWJC No. 2615/2000(R)), the respondents have stated that the height of the petitioner is 178 CM. who belongs to general category and the petitioner does not possess certificate of Homeguaid training. No person having lesser height than the petitioner Nand Kishore Pandey has been appointed. Those, whose names have been mentioned, are either having higher height than the petitioner or belong to a separate class i.e. having Home guard training certificate. Details of height etc. of all the candidates, so appointed, as also the height of the petitioner have been shown in the counter affidavit. Petitioner Man Mohan Pandey of CWJC No. 2611 of 2000 (R) has pleaded that persons, having lesser height, have been appointed. However, no specific example of one or other candidate has been given in the writ petition. Petitioner Baliram Prasad Gupta of CWJC No. 2617 of 2000 (R), though names certain persons, including Prafulla Kumar Jha. Pankaj Kumar etc., having been appointed but from the counter affidavit, filed in CWJC No, "2615 of 2000 (R), it appears that such persons belong to a separate class, who have got home-guard training certificates and thereby, the petitioner can not equate himself with them. Similar is the case of Bipin Pradhan of CWJC No. 2844 of 2000(R), wherein, specific statement has been made by the respondents in the counter affidavit that no person of same category, having lesser height than the petitioner has been appointed, as is evident from paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the counter" affidavit. 6. In the counter affidavit, filed in the case of Dusmant Kumar Pradhan of CWJC No. 2804 to 2000 (R) at paragraph Nos, 7 and 8, details with regard to others have been given to suggest that no person of same category to that of the petitioner, having" lesser height has been appointed." 7. Similar statement has been made at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit, filed in the case of Avinas Pradhan of CWJC No 2763 of 2000 (R) to suggest that no person of the same category having lesser height than the petitioner, has been appointed. 8. Similar statement has been made at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit, filed in the case of Avinas Pradhan of CWJC No 2763 of 2000 (R) to suggest that no person of the same category having lesser height than the petitioner, has been appointed. 8. Similar counter affidavit has been filed in the case of Manoj Kumar Pradhan of CWJC No. 2845 of 2000(R), wherein, the respondents have raised dispute relating to height of the petitioner, who is stated to be of 166 cm. 9. So far as the cases of Uma Shankar Singh of CWJC No. 2641 of 2000 (R). Bam Kumar of CWJC No. 2451 of 20OO (R), Anil Kumar Singh of GWJC No. 2452 of 2000 (R) Shankar Kumar Singh of CWJC No. 2453 of 2000 (R). Pramod Kumar Singh of CWJC No. 2466 of 2000 (R) Shyam Ranjan Kumar of CWJC No. 2477 of 2000 (R), Shiv Bachan Singh of CWJC No. 2710 of 2000 (R) and Nagendra Dubey of CWJC No, 2584 of 2000 (R) are concerned, Mr. v. Shivnath learned counsel for the petitioners while accepted that their cases are covered with common counter affidavit, filed in CWJC No. 2641 of 2000 (R), submitted that amendment petition has been filed impleading one Baban Yadav as party respondent. It "is alleged that the private respondents in the cases have been appointed on the basis of forged home guard training certificates. 10. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the respondents in their counter affidavit, filed in CWJC No. 2641 of 2000 (R) have given details of those, named in the writ petition and have been appointed and have made a classification between the petitioners and those, so appointed, on the ground that the others hold home guard training certificates and the petitioners do not belong to such category. In the aforesaid background, the petitioners have alleged that one or other candidate have produced forged homeguard certificates. 11. Mr. v. Shivnath counsel for the petitioners relied on one common order. passed by this Court on 14th August. 2001 in the case of Gopal Sharan v. State of Bihar & Ors.. CWJC No. 2174 of 2000 (R) and analogous cases, wherein, similar plea had been taken, as taken in the present writ petitions. 11. Mr. v. Shivnath counsel for the petitioners relied on one common order. passed by this Court on 14th August. 2001 in the case of Gopal Sharan v. State of Bihar & Ors.. CWJC No. 2174 of 2000 (R) and analogous cases, wherein, similar plea had been taken, as taken in the present writ petitions. In the said cases, a Bench of this Court, taking into consideration that the selection took place in the year, 1998, a number of persons having already been appointed, more than one and half year having passed after preparation of panel and subsequently fresh Advertisement No. 1/2001 has been issued by the State of Jharkhand for appointments to the posts of Constables in different districts, refused to grant relief. So far as prayer made in the amendment petition regarding alleged production of forged certificates by some persons is concerned, the petitioners of those cases were given liberty to bring such matter to the notice of the concerned Superintendents of Police under whom such appointments have been made and the Court desired that the concerned Superintendents of Police should determine the claim by a reasoned order. 12. In respect to selection made under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police, Chatra, a counter affidavit has been field in CWJC No. 2614 of 2000, wherein, master chart of selected candidates has been enclosed to suggest the cut off height against which one or other persons have been appointed. It is stated that in the first list, no person having lesser height than 180 cm., belonging to backward category has been appointed. Petitioner Indu Bhushan Mishra of CWJC No. 2619 of 2000 (R) has taken plea that he raised dispute relating to height as was reflected in the master chart and on his application, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh, made certain note on 27th of February, 1999, but no remeasurement is stated to have taken place thereafter. Similar plea has been taken by petitioner Shyam Kishore Singh of CWJC No. 2614 of 2000 (R), wherein, the respondents have disputed such claim. Petitioner Md. Ayub Khan of CWJC No. 2721 of 2000 (R) claims to possess height of 179 cm. but the respondents have disputed the fact and stated his height to be found on measurement 177.7 cm. It is stated that persons, belonging to general category up to the height of 181.7 cm. have been appointed. Petitioner Md. Ayub Khan of CWJC No. 2721 of 2000 (R) claims to possess height of 179 cm. but the respondents have disputed the fact and stated his height to be found on measurement 177.7 cm. It is stated that persons, belonging to general category up to the height of 181.7 cm. have been appointed. Petitioners Manoj Kumar Pandey and Anr. of CWJC No. 2324 of 2000 (R), who appeared before the Selection Board, constituted under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga, have made vague statement at paragraph No. 16 of the writ petition that persons, figuring below the names of these petitioners, have been appointed, but such statement has been made without reference to any evidence nor the name of any person has been shown. Similar is the case of petitioner Jhari Munda of CWJC No. 2288 of 2000 (R), who merely stated that the persons not physically superior to the petitioner, have been considered to be fit, without naming any individual. 13. From the facts, as narrated above, it will be evident that there is a- disputed question of fact relating to height of one or other petitioner, which can not be determined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This apart, most of the petitioners have preferred writ petitions much after one year of the preparation of the original panel. In the aforesaid background, following the decision of those, in the case of Gopal Sharan v. State of Bihar & Ors. CWJC No. 2174 of 2000 (R) and analogous cases, disposed of on 14th August, 2001, and in view of the fact that subsequent Advertisement No. 1/2001 has been issued by the State of Jharkhand for appointment to the posts of Constables, no relief can be granted in the aforesaid writ petitions. 14. So far as petitioner Loknath Ram of CWJC No. 124 of 2000 (R) is concerned, he has preferred the writ petition on 13th January. 2001 i.e. will within the life time of the panel. From the pleading. It will be evident that he was selected and recommended by the Selection Board for appointment to the post of Constable in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/98. He was shown selected when the roll numbers of selected candidates were published for the district of ranchi in the newspaper vide Annexure 3. From the pleading. It will be evident that he was selected and recommended by the Selection Board for appointment to the post of Constable in pursuance of Advertisement No. 1/98. He was shown selected when the roll numbers of selected candidates were published for the district of ranchi in the newspaper vide Annexure 3. Formal offer of appointment was also issued in his favour by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, vide Memo No. 3044 dated 3rd July, 1999, whereby, he was asked to appear in the office for verification of all original certificates. He appeared and produced the certificates but was not sent for training. 15. In the counter affidavit, the respondents while accepted that the height of the petitioner Loknath Ram was found to be 178 cm. by the Selection Board, at the time of joining his height is stated to have been found to be 173.5 cm. Counsel for the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, to make remeasurement of the height in absence of any objection, raised by one or other and thereby changing the recommendation of a validly constituted Selection Board. 16. This Court finds that the petitioner Loknath Ram, having made out a case for reconsideration of his case, as he was found of 178 cm. by the Selection Board but on the ground that his height was lesser he was not allowed to join inspite of issuance of offer of appointment in his favour. 17. For the reasons, the case of petitioner Loknath Ram of CWJC No, 124 of 2000 (R) is remitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Chhotanagpur Range. Ranchi, who in his turn, will get the height of the petitioner loknath Ram remeasured personally or through some other officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police and will determine as to whether in view of offer of appointment dated 3rd July. 1999, joining of the petitioner Loknath Ram is to be accepted or not. It may be mentioned that after remeasurement if it is found that any person having lesser height than the petitioner Loknath Ram belonging to same category, has been appointed, the respondents will accept the joining of the petitioner Loknath Ram. 1999, joining of the petitioner Loknath Ram is to be accepted or not. It may be mentioned that after remeasurement if it is found that any person having lesser height than the petitioner Loknath Ram belonging to same category, has been appointed, the respondents will accept the joining of the petitioner Loknath Ram. A decision in this respect is to be taken and communicated to the petitioner Loknath Ram within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. So far as appointments of one or other person on the basis of forged certificates is concerned, such decision can not be given by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such aggrieved petitioner(s) is/are given liberty to bring the matter to the notice of the concerned Superintendent(s) of Police under whom such appointments have been made, who is/are expected to determine such claim by a reasoned order. 18. For the reasons aforesaid. CWJC Nos. 2288, 2324, 2451, 2452. 2453, 2466. 2477, 2584. 2611, 2614. 2615. 2617. 2619. 2620, 2641. 2710, 2721, 2763, 2804, 2844 and 2845, all of 2000 (R). except CWJC No. 124 of 2000 (R) are dismissed with the liberty as mentioned above. 19. So far as CWJC 124 of 2000 (R) is concerned, it is disposed of with the observations and directions, as made above. 20. Petitions disposed of.