Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 939 (JHR)

Gaurav Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-14

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
Order Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the. petitioner has challenged the District order dated 22.9.2007, contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Koderma, cancelling the candidature of the petitioner to the post of police constable and consequently, dismissing him from service on the ground of being the beneficiary of manipulation in the Master Chart. 3.The facts, in short leading to present case, are that an advertisement no. 1/2004 dated 13.1.2004 was published calling for application for appointment of the police constables in the different Districts of the State of Jharkhand including the Districts of Hazaribagh, Koderma, Giridih and Chatra. Pursuant thereto the petitioner applied for the said post by filling up the forms. It is stated that the selection process of the aforesaid four districts namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih was cancelled by memo no. 1764/P on 10.12.2005 by the competent authority when it was found that some illegality and malpractices were committed in the selection process. The successful candidates of the aforesaid four districts again appeared in a fresh physical and medical tests including the petitioner. The petitioner was declared successful and his name appeared in the second selection process. His education qualification was Intermediate pass and he was 184 cm. in height and as per the Rules for appointment, the petitioner got 14+7= 21 marks. After being declared successful the petitioner received his joining letter on 14.4.2007 and, accordingly, he joined. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that after working for about six months, he, by issue of notice to show cause dated 14.9.2007, was asked to explain as to why he should not be dismissed from service since some interpolations in the Master Chart were detected and he was found to be the beneficiary of such manipulations in the Master Chart therefore, the Selection Committee decided to cancel his candidature. The petitioner submitted his reply and, thereafter, the impugned order dated 22.9.2007 cancelling the candidature and dismissal from service against the petitioner was passed. The petitioner has challenged the said order of his dismissal from the service on the ground that even if any manipulation in the Master Chart was found the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for any such alleged interpolation in the Master Chart since the said Master Chart was in complete possession of the respondents. 5. The petitioner has challenged the said order of his dismissal from the service on the ground that even if any manipulation in the Master Chart was found the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible for any such alleged interpolation in the Master Chart since the said Master Chart was in complete possession of the respondents. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Koderma, who was the Chairman of the Selection Board. In. the counter affidavit, it has been stated that with regard to the matter relating to the appointment of police constables, pursuant to the advertisement no. 1/2004, came before this Court in W.P.S. No. 1242 of 2006. In the said wm petition the respondents were directed to make -appointment according to the selection/merit list of successful candidates declared successful in the four districts of the State namely Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih against the advertised vacancies excluding 932 candidates identified by the Inquiry Officer and found to be beneficiaries of malpractices during the selection. The petitioner's whose name figured in the merit list was issued call letter for joining in the district of Koderma, however his roll number 5040A being an unnatural number his Master Chart entry alongwith other candidates who had unnatural numbers was verified by the Selection Board under the Chairmanship of the present respondent and the petitioner was found to be the beneficiary of malpractices, hence the Board decided to declare his candidature void following the spirit of the Hon'ble High Court's order in W.P.S. No. 1242 of 2006. 6. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was found beneficiary of malpractices since 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 found to be inserted by removing the original page. It has also been stated therein that when the advertisement for selection of the constables was issued a cut of date for making application was fixed and as and when the application forms were received, roll numbers were allotted instantly and roll numbers were entered on the main part as well as the lower part of the application form and the lower part of the application form was returned to the applicant by way of receipt. According to the roll numbers, i.e. allotted category-wise master chart was also prepared category-wise and serially the entries were made and the last entry was that of the last application form received in that category. Thereafter, the police headquarter was informed of the number of applicants in each category so that after the closing date no new application was entertained. 7. It has been further stated therein that in the case of the petitioner it appeared that the whole page was changed and he was given an unnatural roll number thus the Selection Board declared the petitioner beneficiary of malpractices and his candidature was declared void after consideration of his show cause, which was submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued to him and found to be not satisfactory. 8. These facts, stated in the counter affidavit, have not been disputed by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder. The only ground, which has been taken by the petitioner to challenge his dismissal from service, is that the respondents were the custodian of the master chart and the petitioner had no access to it and, therefore, he cannot be made responsible for any such alleged manipulation in the Master Chart. 9. The question is not that as who, in fact, committed the mischief by making interpolation in the final select list, i.e. the Master Chart but the question is as to whether a person, who has wrongly been selected on the basis of some interpolation in the Master Chart and he was illegally benefited by such interpolation then in that case, can such a person be held to be entitled to retain in the service that too of a police constable, though he personally may not have interpolated the Master Chart. The answer would be in negative. 10. Admittedly, the similarly situated other 932 candidates, who were also found to be the beneficiaries of the malpractices because of the interpolations in the Master Chart, have been similarly dealt with and they have been removed from services by cancelling their candidature. The answer would be in negative. 10. Admittedly, the similarly situated other 932 candidates, who were also found to be the beneficiaries of the malpractices because of the interpolations in the Master Chart, have been similarly dealt with and they have been removed from services by cancelling their candidature. May be that the Master Chart was in possession of the Respondents authorities but the fact remains that in the Master Chart, i.e. the final select list, interpolations were made and the petitioner was one of the beneficiaries of such interpolations and he was selected on the basis of mischief committed by vested interest and, therefore, when such mischief/manipulations in the Master Chart was detected, the respondents rightly cancelled the candidature of such persons including the petitioner after giving notice, i.e. after affording reasonable opportunity to explain. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application in dismissed.