Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 282 (PAT)

Jyoti Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2009-02-17

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4463 of 2002, dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) offered his candidature for appointment as Constable in response to advertisement no.2 of 1995. Petitioner was a candidate in the non-home guard category and the height of the last candidate appointed in that category was 181 centimeters. Accordingly petitioner was not found fit for appointment as Constable. However, the Director and Inspector General of Police by communication dated 30th of October, 1996 communicated to the Senior Superintendent of Police its order for appointment of the petitioner under special circumstances. While doing so it has been observed that the petitioner is trained in computer work. In the light of the aforesaid order, petitioner was appointed as Constable. 3. Later on, it transpired that large number of appointments were made by the then Director General of Police Mr. A.K. Saxena under special circumstances. Complaints in this regard were received from various quarters and audit objections also raised by the Accountant General. The matter was therafter examined and the petitioner served with a show cause notice. He submitted his reply and on consideration of the same, the Senior Superintendent of Police by order dated 18.3.2002 terminated his service besides other such Constables appointed by the then Director General of Police under special circumstances. 4. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of termination by filing the writ application and the same has been dismissed by the impugned order. 5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that petitioner offered his candidature for appointment to the post of Constable in response to the advertisement and taking into consideration his knowledge and training in computer he was selected and thus has appointment cannot be said to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The submission did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and in this connection it has been observed as follows:- "In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact the position in law is clear that petitioner was unsuccessful in getting selected for recruitment pursuant to advertisement no.2 of 1995. 6. The submission did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and in this connection it has been observed as follows:- "In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact the position in law is clear that petitioner was unsuccessful in getting selected for recruitment pursuant to advertisement no.2 of 1995. His recruitment under the directions of the then Director General of Police, Mr. Saxena is contrary to rules of recruitment and violates the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Similar appointments made by Mr. Saxena or even made earlier were the subject matter of a batch of cases in which this Court decided against the terminated employees like the petitioner by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Hem Kant Jha Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(3) PLJR 657 . This Court finds no goods reasons to take a different view than what has been taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case of Hem Kant Jha. It is useful to point out here that even the wireless message contained in Annexure-6 from the office of Director General of Police required selection of three newly recruited Constables from each districts. Petitioners name could not have been sent as a recruited Constable from Jamshedpur because he had obviously failed to get selected and recruited." 7. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that taking into account the petitioners special knowledge and training of computer, he was selected for appointment as Constable and therefore his service ought not to have been terminated. 8. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. Petitioner was not found eligible for selection as Constable as his height was 176 centimeters and in his category a candidate having height of 181 centimeters was selected. His selection has been made on the basis of the communication of the then Director General of Police. Several such appointments were made by the then Director General of Police under special circumstance and later on their services have been terminated. Challenge made to termination of services of such Constables came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemkant Jha & Others Vs. Several such appointments were made by the then Director General of Police under special circumstance and later on their services have been terminated. Challenge made to termination of services of such Constables came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hemkant Jha & Others Vs. The State of Bihar & Others [ 2007 (3) PLJR 657 ] and this Court had upheld the order of termination of such Constables. There does not exist any reason to take a different view. 9. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition. 10. In the result, the appeal has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly.