Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1196 (JHR)

Birendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-10-20

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
JUDGMENT : The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a writ of mandamus to issue forthwith the appointment letter to the petitioner in terms of Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 to the post of Constable. 2. The grounds on which the prayer has been made are that the petitioner is a Home Guard Trained Personnel and possesses all requisite qualifications and he was selected for the post of Constable after having qualified in all the Tests prescribed, including the Physical standards of height and chest measurements and there is no justifiable reason for denying the appointment to the petitioner when other candidates including one Raj Kumar Prasad, who does not even possess the Home Guard Training Certificate, has been given the appointment. 3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that an advertisement vide Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 was issued by the Respondents-authorities for filling up the vacant posts of Constables in all the 22 districts within the State of Jharkhand. 50 per cent reservation was stipulated for candidates, who possess Home Guard Training Certificate. The petitioner applied for the post in the prescribed format annexing all the requisite documents including the School Leaving Certificate (Date of Birth Certificate), Residential Certificate and Home Guard Training Certificate for his appointment to the post in the district of Koderma. The petitioner appeared for his physical Test and was declared qualified. Yet, when the final results were published on 09.12.2002, his name was not mentioned in the list of selected candidates. On enquiry, he was informed that the Registration number of his Home Guards Training Certificate was not entered in the Master Roll and therefore, his appointment letter was not issued. The petitioner’s further contention is that the duty of making entries in the Master Roll is that of the Sergeant Major and not of the petitioner and because of the latches/lapses of the Sergeant Major, the petitioner could not have been penalized. The petitioner’s further contention is that the duty of making entries in the Master Roll is that of the Sergeant Major and not of the petitioner and because of the latches/lapses of the Sergeant Major, the petitioner could not have been penalized. The petitioner asserts that he has been discriminated in the matter of appointment as because one Raj Kumar Prasad, who had also appeared alongwith the petitioner at the physical and other Tests, has been given the letter of appointment under the Home Guard Reservation Category although to the knowledge of the petitioner, he does not possess the Home Guard Training Certificate and further, even though the height measurements of the said Raj Kumar Prasad and another candidate, namely, one Bijay Yadav both of whom have been selected for their appointment in the district of Koderma, is much lesser than the height of the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been denied the appointment. Referring to the copy of the application (Annexure-C), the petitioner submits that in his application he has categorically mentioned the fact that he possesses the Home Guard Training Certificate under Registration Number 17855 and has also annexed the copy of the Home Guard’s Training Certificate. The petitioner asserts that when such declaration was made by the petitioner in his application, it was incumbent upon the Respondents-authorities to consider the petitioner’s candidature under the same category and to make the corresponding entries in the master roll. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. While denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner, the stand taken by the Respondents is that the petitioner had submitted his candidature by applying in the prescribed format under the Home Guard category. In Column 10 of the application, he had also stated that he is a member of the “Ranchi District Home Guard’s Association”, bearing Registration No. 17855 but he had not annexed the copy of the Home Guard Certificate alongwith other testimonials as required of him and in absence of the Home Guard’s Training Certificate, no entry was made in the corresponding column in the Master chart affirming that the petitioner possesses the Home Guard Training Certificate. Learned counsel for the Respondents by referring to the Master Chart (Annexure-D) would explain that Column 5 of the Master chart, which relates to the Home Guard’s Registration Certificate and the District, has been shown blank and the petitioner who had put his signature in Column 14 of the Master chart at the time when the same was prepared, did not raise any objections thereto, whatsoever. Furthermore, even as admitted by the petitioner that he came to know about the absence of the entry made in the master chart, he did not file any representation for the necessary correction in the master chart. 5. From the rival pleadings, the facts which emerge are that in response to the Advertisement, the petitioner had submitted his candidature by filing his application in the prescribed format. The copy of the application (Annexure-C) indicates that the petitioner had mentioned specifically in Column 10 that he did possess a Home Guard’s Training Certificate bearing Registration No. 17855. It is not disputed that the petitioner had appeared at the requisite Tests and had qualified and was selected in the Tests. Thus, even according to the Respondents, the petitioner did not suffer from any disqualification whatsoever in terms of his physical standards, age and other qualifications. The only ground on which his appointment has been denied is that the entry in the master chart in respect of the Home Guard’s Certificate, which the petitioner possesses, was not made. It is contended on behalf of the Respondents that the petitioner did not enclose a copy of the Home Guard’s Training Certificate and therefore, the corresponding entry was not made in the master chart, suggesting thereby that the petitioner’s application, which the petitioner had submitted, was itself defective and liable to be disqualified. If, this was so, then there could be no occasion for the Respondents to accept the petitioner’s application and thereafter invite him to face the physical and other Tests. His application could have been out rightly rejected on the ground of its being defective. The fact that this was not done, lends support to the petitioner’s claim that he had enclosed all the requisite certificates including the copy of the Home Guard’s Training Certificate, to his application form. Even otherwise, admittedly, the Registration number of the petitioner’s Home Guard’s Training Certificate has been categorically stated in Column 10 of the application. The fact that this was not done, lends support to the petitioner’s claim that he had enclosed all the requisite certificates including the copy of the Home Guard’s Training Certificate, to his application form. Even otherwise, admittedly, the Registration number of the petitioner’s Home Guard’s Training Certificate has been categorically stated in Column 10 of the application. Admittedly, the entries in the master chart are made by the Sergeant Major, who is an officer under the Respondents. It cannot, therefore, be denied that the Sergeant Major should have made the entries in the master chart after perusing all the relevant documents including the application forms of the selected candidates. From perusal of the Master chart (Annexure-D), it appears that signatures of the selected candidates in Column 14 of the Chart were not obtained simultaneously while making the entries in Column 1 to 7 of the chart. The Chart indicates that the signatures of one of the candidates, namely, Santosh Kumar Mali at Sr. No. 7478 was not at all obtained at the Masters chart and likewise, even though purportedly the signatures of the candidate at Sr. No. 2, namely, Md. Shabbir appears in the Master chart in Column 14 but the details of other particulars relating to Column Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 have not been filled up. The petitioner’s assertion therefore, that at the time of obtaining his signature on the master chart, the entries in respect of the other columns including the absence of entry in Column 5 relating to his Home Guard’s Training Registration Certificate, was not made known to him, cannot be ignored. 6. In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in the grounds advanced by the petitioner in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner’s candidature in the light of the admitted fact that he had applied for the post of Constable under the Reserved category for the Home Guards and that he did possess the Home Guard’s Training Certificate on the relevant date, and to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s prayer for his appointment, against the existing vacancies, if any, within the district for which the petitioner had applied. This exercise must be carried out and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This exercise must be carried out and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above observations, this writ application stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents.