Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 723 (JHR)

Namo Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-15

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order dated 26.5.2007, contained in Annexure-4, issued under the signature of respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, whereby the petitioner was informed that the Selection Board has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner for the appointment of Police Constable pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/2004. Further prayer is that after quashing of Annexure-4, the petitioner be reinstated on the post of constable. 3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/2004, he applied for appointment to the post of Police Constable and he was allotted Roll No. 4011 A. The petitioner was declared successful in all the tests. His height was found to be 181.5 cm. and he also possessed the required educational qualification of matric pass. The petitioner, thereafter, received a call letter contained in Annexure-3 dated 3.4.2007, asking the petitioner to appear on 10.4.2007 along with all the original certificates and testimonials for verification and for physical fitness. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he appeared pursuant to Annexure-3 and gave his joining report but in place of accepting his joining, he was served with an order dated 26.5.2007 contained in Annexure-4, cancelling his candidature on the ground that some over writing and interpolations were found in the master chart against his name. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once he was declared successful in all the events/tests and when he was found having requisite educational qualification then his candidature could not have been cancelled unilaterally without Issuance of any notice to show cause particularly on the ground that some interpolations and over writings were found in the master chart against his name. 6. Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before issuing Impugned Annexure-4, no notice to show cause or a chance of hearing was given to the petitioner and. therefore, the issuance of Annexure-4 is in violation of the principle of natural justice which cannot be sustained in law. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 7. therefore, the issuance of Annexure-4 is in violation of the principle of natural justice which cannot be sustained in law. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 7. On the other hand, the case of the respondent State, as it appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, is that the Selection Board after enquiry had Identified 932 candidates against whom there was allegations that there was interpolation and over writing in the master chart and malpractices was used in declaring them successful. 8. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 1242/2006 along with other analogous cases directed the respondents to make appointment according to the selection/merit list of the successful candidates declared successful in the four Districts of the State namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih against the advertised vacancy excluding 932 candidates identified by the Enquiry Officer and found to be beneficiaries of the malpractices during the selection. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that this writ petitioner, who named figure in the merit list, was issued a call letter for Joining for the District of Hazaribagh. However, a writ petition being WPS No. 1515/2007 was filed by Pravin Kumar Singh alleging therein that some more candidates, who were also the beneficiaries of the mal-practices, have been appointed. Then the Chairman of the Selection Board verified the records and found that the present writ petitioner was also a beneficiary of the mal-practice and. therefore, the Selection Board decided to cancel his candidature in the spirit of the High Court's orders in the writ petition being WPS No. 1242/2006. 9. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner was the beneficiary of the mal-practices. therefore, the Selection Board decided to cancel his candidature in the spirit of the High Court's orders in the writ petition being WPS No. 1242/2006. 9. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner was the beneficiary of the mal-practices. The whole master chart was scrutinized by the Selection Board and it was found that the page on which the petitioner's name was entered was containing the name of 10 candidates while on the other pages of the master chart only five candidates' entries were made, which was the normal practice and it was also found that the handwriting and the ink used in the page, where the petitioner's name was entered, was different from that of the other pages of the master chart. On that page, while five candidates' names were of natural Roll Nos. viz. 4011, 4012, 4013, 4014 and 4015, the others were given unnatural roll numbers by adding "A" after their roll numbers like the petitioner, whose roll numbers was 4011 A. This could have done either by removing the original page or by leaving it blank or later on the entries were made to benefit the petitioner. It was also found that during physical test an another register was maintained and the candidates' names were entered who were successful in completing one mile run but in the said register the petitioner's name was not found entered and, therefore, it was found that by adopting mal-practice the name of the petitioner was inserted in the master chart. It was clear that the petitioner did not take part in the run and, as such, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. 10. From the facts noticed hereinabove, it is clear that the fact that no prior notice to show cause or a chance of being heard was given to the petitioner has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. In view of the fact that the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled by issue of Annexure-4 on the basis of some allegations against him and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to give a chance to the petitioner to explain his position. But as it appears that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of Annexure-4 and as such. But as it appears that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of Annexure-4 and as such. I am of the view that the issuance of Annexure-4 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner was in complete violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this application is allowed and Annexure-4 i.e. the order of cancellation of candidature of the petitioner is hereby quashed. However, it is observed that if the respondents intend to take any action against the petitioner, they may do so after complying the principles of natural justice. Petition allowed.