Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1362 (JHR)

Chandan Bhuiyan v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-04

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Judgment Learned counsel for the Respondents submits at the outset that in compliance with the order dated-14.10.2009, the cost amount of Rs.2,000/-has been collected but in absence of any specific direction as to whom the amount should be deposited, the same is still lying in the custody of the Respondents. 2. Considering the above facts, learned counsel for the Respondents shall deposit the cost with the welfare fund of the Bar Association, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. Learned counsel shall submit the copy of the receipt of such deposit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents. 4. In course of preliminary arguments, a question has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the letter (Annexure-3), whereby the petitioner has been declared to have been selected for his appointment to the post of Constable on the basis of his qualifying in the several Tests, should be treated as a letter of his appointment and if not, whether the Respondents do issue any other letter of appointment to the candidates who have been selected and allowed to join the posts. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondents would reply by referring to the contents of the letter (Annexure-3) itself and pointing out that as has been categorically mentioned in the letter, the same is not to be treated as a letter of appointment. 6. The controversy raised in this writ application, by the petitioner is on the basis of the refusal of the Respondents to allow him to join the post pursuant to the letter (Annexure-3). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would explain that even as admitted by the Respondents, the petitioner had submitted his application in response to the Advertisement issued by the Respondents for appointment to the post of Constable. He had appeared at the several tests including the physical tests. The measurements of his height, chest and other particulars were duly recorded by the concerned authorities, who had conducted the Tests. Being satisfied that the petitioner has qualified in all aspects after completing at the Tests, the Respondents had issued the letter (Annexure-3), declaring that the petitioner was found qualified and has been therefore, selected for his appointment. The measurements of his height, chest and other particulars were duly recorded by the concerned authorities, who had conducted the Tests. Being satisfied that the petitioner has qualified in all aspects after completing at the Tests, the Respondents had issued the letter (Annexure-3), declaring that the petitioner was found qualified and has been therefore, selected for his appointment. However, when the petitioner had sought to join his post, he was not allowed on the ground that there are certain discrepancies in respect of the measurement of his height as recorded in the Registers and furthermore, the height which the petitioner actually possesses, is also possessed by another candidate of the same category and the case of the petitioner being tide up with the other candidate, the selection of the other candidate was made on the basis of his higher age. 8. Dr. S. N. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the aforesaid pleadings of the Respondents on the ground that while conducting the physical tests and recording the physical measurements, it was the concerned authorities of the Respondents who had themselves exclusively conducted the tests and such measurements were not recorded once but as many as on three occasions and on each occasion, the petitioner’s height measurement was recorded above 177 cms. The contention of the Respondents now that on a subsequent measurement, his height was recorded at 167 cms., is totally incorrect and misleading. Learned counsel adds that there is no allegation on the part of the Respondents that in the Register in which the measurement of the petitioner’s height was recorded, there was any interpolation or overwriting and that too at the instance of the petitioner. Apparently, the measurements were recorded by the competent authorities and the same have to be deemed as correct. 9. As regards the other ground, that the petitioner’s height measurements had matched equally with an other candidate in the same category, learned counsel submits that such contention is also misconceived and misleading as well as incorrect in view of the fact that the petitioner’s actual height measurement, as recorded in the Register of the Respondents, is certainly above 177 cms. and not 167 cms. as claimed by them. 10. and not 167 cms. as claimed by them. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand would invite attention to the contents of the letter (Annexure-3) to argue that the letter (Annexure-3) cannot be treated as a letter of appointment and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of such letter. Rather, the selection of the petitioner, as declared by the letter itself, was made subject to the satisfaction of the concerned authorities about the physical standards, which the petitioner is required to possess. 11. From the above rival submissions, it does appear that admittedly, the petitioner’s height measurements were recorded by the concerned authorities of the Respondents who are deemed to be responsible officers and the recordings made by them at the time of conducting the test, is presumed to have been made diligently and bonafidely. The measurement of the petitioner’s height purported to have been recorded subsequently at the time when he presented himself for joining duty, has been seriously disputed by the petitioner on the ground that he in fact possesses the height, which was recorded at the time of his appearing at the physical Tests. 12. Apparently, the petitioner’s candidature has been rejected on the ground that his height measurements were found to be less than what was earlier recorded. It is informed that the minimum required height in the category for which the petitioner had applied is, 155 cms. i.e. in the case of Reserved category. The petitioner certainly possesses the measurement of height above 155 cms. and on this score, he could not have been disqualified. If the Respondents claimed that there has been a tie between the petitioner and some other candidate, and for which the candidate gains over the petitioner, it was expected from the Respondents, to inform the petitioner about such circumstances, and to enable him to satisfy the authorities concerned that the facts are otherwise than what they have declared. 13. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and to meet the demands of justice in all fairness, the Respondents should allow the petitioner a fresh opportunity to subject himself for physical Test for the purposes of remeasuring his height and to take an appropriate decision only after conducting such re-measurement. 14. 13. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and to meet the demands of justice in all fairness, the Respondents should allow the petitioner a fresh opportunity to subject himself for physical Test for the purposes of remeasuring his height and to take an appropriate decision only after conducting such re-measurement. 14. In the light of the above discussions, the concerned authorities of the Respondents are directed to re-measure the petitioner’s height and record the same. The petitioner’s signature in affirmation of the measurements so recorded shall be taken and depending upon the height measurements of the petitioner, the concerned authorities of the Respondents shall take an appropriate decision regarding the petitioner’s appointments on the basis of their affirmed declaration that the petitioner was otherwise found successful and was selected for his appointment. This exercise must be carried out and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of. 16. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents.