Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 887 (JHR)

Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-07-24

M.Y.EQBAL

body2003
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.4.2002 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dumka whereby the claim of appointment of the petitioner on the post of constable has been refused and further for a direction to the respondents to produce the original master chart and other relevant papers relating to the selection made for the post of constable in the District of Dumka. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1993 the petitioner applied for the post of constable. It appears that the petitioner earlier moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 1697 of 2002 and this Court disposed of the same on 13.3.2002 by passing the following order : "The petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable. It appears that the respondent No. 4 was directed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana, Dumka (respondent No. 3), fide his letter dated 4.5.2000 in pursuance of the order passed in CWJC No. 10176/1998. The respondent No. 2 also directed the respondent No. 4 to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable, Annexure 4. Annexure 4 was sent to respondent No. 4 on 5.7.2001. Even after lapse of about eight months, no compliance has been made. In Annexure 4, it has been directed that if the height of the petitioner has been found above 165.5 cm., then as per the rules, he should be appointed and the compliance thereof should be intimated to the D.G.P. Without going into the merits of the case the Superintendent of Police, Dumka, respondent No. 4, is directed to comply with the order of the D.G.P. contained in Annexure 4 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and he will also sent a compliance report to this Court. With this direction/observation this application is disposed of." 3. The main grievance of the petitioner was that one Afroz Alam who was also a candidate and although his height was measured as 165.50 cm., he was given appointment ignoring the case of the petitioner whose height was found 168 cm. 4. With this direction/observation this application is disposed of." 3. The main grievance of the petitioner was that one Afroz Alam who was also a candidate and although his height was measured as 165.50 cm., he was given appointment ignoring the case of the petitioner whose height was found 168 cm. 4. The grievance of the petitioner was again considered by the S.P., Dumka as per direction of this Court in terms of the order quoted hereinabove and the height of the petitioner as well as Afroz Alam was again measured and it was found that the height of Afroz Alam was 168.50 cm. whereas the height of the petitioner is 168 cm. The S.P. Dumka, therefore expressed his inability to appoint the petitioner because of his lesser height. 5. Mr. P.BN. Roy learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the S.P. Dumka is not factually correct and, therefore, it is necessary to call the master chart and other documents to know the correct state of affairs. 6. As noticed above, the petitioner earlier moved this Court with the grievance that the height of Afroz Alam is lesser than his height and, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed. On the grievance of the petitioner this Court directed the S.P. Dumka to reconsider the matter and find out the correctness of the averment made by the petitioner. Consequently the height of the petitioner was again measured and it was found that his height was less than the height of the candidate who was appointed. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no need to further inquire into the matter in view of the decision taken by the S.P. Dumka. No relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed.