Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1419 (JHR)

Binod Kumar Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-11

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2009
Judgment This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Police Constable in Chatra District. 2. In substance, it is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner, pursuant to advertisement dated 14.1.2004 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) applied for appointment to the post of constable against the vacancies out of which 50 percent according to the advertisement were required to be filled up by the candidates of Home Guard Trainees. In the light of the advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application in proper form which was entertained and thereafter he was called on different dates to appear at Hazaribagh for physical tests and other tests for his selection on the post of a constable. 3. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Board and he was successful in all the test. The petitioner’s height was measured 179 cms by the selection committee which is more than the required height, but the petitioner’s case was not considered by the respondents although he claims that he fulfilled all the conditions for his appointment as constable. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Backward Class community having Home Guard training certificate, but his candidature was not considered even being a Home Guard. When he was not given appointment, he has filed this writ petition for issuance of direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of constable. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner had never been a Home Guard Category candidate. He was in a non Home Guard Backward Class category. Though he submitted his claim that he belongs to Home Guard category, it was not found correct. The vacancies occurred in the year 2004 and the last date for submission of application was 15.2.2004 which is evident from paragraph 7 of annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has filed Annexure 3 to the writ petition, which is a copy of the Home Guard Training Certificate of the petitioner which clearly reveals that he completed his training in the year 2005 and it had started in December, 2004. The petitioner has filed Annexure 3 to the writ petition, which is a copy of the Home Guard Training Certificate of the petitioner which clearly reveals that he completed his training in the year 2005 and it had started in December, 2004. It was further stated that the petitioner does not come within the zone of consideration as the last person appointed under the category in question has secured 17 points whereas the petitioner has secured only 14 points. 5 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his candidature was rejected on the ground of his height being below the height as prescribed in the advertisement. He further contended that he belongs to Backward Class community and according to the advertisement his height should have been 160 cm, and though his height was found 178 cm, his candidature was rejected on the ground of height, which is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 7 Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner’s candidature has not been rejected on the ground of his height. Rather, his candidature has been rejection on other grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate so as to satisfy the Court that his candidature was rejected only the ground of height. Thus, the petitioner’s candidature was not rejected on the ground of height. It was further pointed out that though the petitioner claims that he was a Home Guard as stated in para 10 and 11 of the writ petition, but since he was appointed on a later date, he was not entitled to get the benefit of Home Guard. He should have been in position as a Home Guard on the date of application and not on a later date. 8 Perusal of the records clearly reveals that the petitioner has stated that he is also entitled to get employment as constable on the ground of his being Home Guard. Last date of submission of application according to annexure 1 was 15.2.2004. According to annexure 3 to the writ petition, the petitioner joined training in the month of December, 2004 and he completed his training in the year 2005. Last date of submission of application according to annexure 1 was 15.2.2004. According to annexure 3 to the writ petition, the petitioner joined training in the month of December, 2004 and he completed his training in the year 2005. Thus, on the date of submission of his application, he being not a home guard he could not claim reservation of Home Guard for the purpose of appointment as a constable. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the facts stated in para 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit are contrary to records. It is also stated in para 10 of the counter affidavit, which is not denied by the petitioner, that the last candidate who was appointed under the Category has secured 17 points whereas the petitioner has secured only 14 points. As such the petitioner was not entitled to get appointment on the ground of merit. In view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is liable fail and this writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.