Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 985 (JHR)

Sadre Alam Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-17

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of police constable on the basis of the fact that they were declared successful in the examination and do come within the zone of consideration for their appointment Facts of the case in brief are as follows : In response to an advertisement No. 1 of 2004 issued by the State of Jharkhand inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Police constables, both the petitioners submitted their applications. They were issued roll no. 7644 and 7666 for their appearance at the prescribed test. 3. Physical tests of the petitioners were conducted. While the petitioner no. 1 claims that his height was measured as 174.5 cm, petitioner no. 2 claims that his height was measured as 173 cm. Further claim of petitioner no.1 is that he had passed Intermediate of Arts, whereas petitioner no.2 claims to be a Postgraduate. The petitioners’ grievance is that having been declared successful at the examination, the petitioners came within the zone of consideration, but no letter of appointment was issued to them. They submitted their representation before the Chairman, Selection Board, but the same was not considered and that the respondents have arbitrarily denied the appointment to the petitioners by adopting pick and choose method in the matter of appointment of constables and in fact, candidates of lesser height than the petitioners have been offered appointment. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that even as per the prescribed criteria for allotment of marks/points in respect of educational qualifications, candidates possessing higher educational qualification, above matriculation, were entitled for allotment of 7 marks. Yet, despite the fact that the petitioner no.1 had specifically stated his educational qualification in his application form, he was not awarded 7 marks for Intermediate qualification. Had the appropriate marks been allotted, the petitioner no.1 would have fetched higher marks in order of merit. Learned counsel adds further that pursuant to General Instructions issued by the DIG Police, all such candidates who could not submit certificates in proof of their educational qualification along with applications, were permitted to submit their certificates after the examination was conducted. The petitioner no.1 submitted his certificate of IA, but even then his case was not considered. Learned counsel adds further that pursuant to General Instructions issued by the DIG Police, all such candidates who could not submit certificates in proof of their educational qualification along with applications, were permitted to submit their certificates after the examination was conducted. The petitioner no.1 submitted his certificate of IA, but even then his case was not considered. Referring to a judgment rendered in WP(S) No. 266 of 2008 by a Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Sohail Khan, who was another candidate of the same panel, learned counsel submits that the facts of the case of the petitioners are identical to that of Md. Sohail khan and the petitioners also deserve re-consideration of their candidatures by the respondents in accordance with the direction contained in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Md. Sohail Khan. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioners. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that no relief can be allowed to the petitioners, as claimed in this writ petition which has been filed almost three years after the conclusion of the entire selection process. Disputing the claim of the petitioners in respect of their physical measurement, it is stated that the height of both the petitioners at the time of their physical test was measured at 172 cms and this was entered in the Master Chart in presence of both the petitioners, who had appended their respective signatures accepting the entries of their height as entered in the chart. As per the prescribed procedure, 9 points were allotted to the petitioners in respect of their height measurement. As per marks allotted for educational qualification, petitioner no.1 was allotted 6 marks since he was a Matriculate and the total points allotted to him was 15. Marks for the educational qualification of petitioner no. 2 was 7 and the total points allotted to him was 16. It is explained that the cut-off marks in regard to the category applicable to the petitioners, was 18 and since total marks fetched by the petitioners was less than the minimum marks required for appointment, they did not and could not come within the zone of consideration. 2 was 7 and the total points allotted to him was 16. It is explained that the cut-off marks in regard to the category applicable to the petitioners, was 18 and since total marks fetched by the petitioners was less than the minimum marks required for appointment, they did not and could not come within the zone of consideration. As regards the claim of petitioner no.1 that he should have been allotted 7 marks for his educational qualification, it is stated that the petitioner no.1 did not submit the certificate of IA examination either along with his original application or even before publication of the final result. As such, marks allotted to him for his educational qualification was based on consideration of the fact that he was a Matriculate. The respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner no.1 that he had submitted his certificate of IA exam before publication of the result. Disputing the claim of the respondents that the cut off marks in the test was 18, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit by referring to the counter affidavit of the respondents filed in the case of Md. Sohail Khan, (supra) that in the case of Sohail Khan, whose name appeared in the same panel in the selection list, the respondents declared that the cut off marks was 17. Learned counsel submits that the height of petitioner no. 1 is 174.6 cms for which he was entitled for 10 marks and considering 7 marks for his IA qualification, his total marks should have been 17 and in that view of the matter, he was within zone of consideration. Learned counsel submits further that the same error was committed in the case of petitioner no.2 whose actual height is 173.1 cms and he should have been allotted 10 marks for the height besides 7 for his educational qualification. 7. From the rival submissions, the fact as would appear is that both the petitioners were allotted 9 marks for measurement of their height. The measurement of their height was recorded in the Master Chart which was prepared at the time of conducting the physical test and both the petitioners had appended their signatures on the master chart acknowledging their height as recorded therein without any dispute. The measurement of their height was recorded in the Master Chart which was prepared at the time of conducting the physical test and both the petitioners had appended their signatures on the master chart acknowledging their height as recorded therein without any dispute. The petitioners cannot now raise dispute as to the recording of their height measurement which they had acknowledged at the time of the physical test. According to the prescribed criteria, for the height measured, each of the petitioners were duly allotted 9 points. As regards the points for educational qualification of the petitioner no.1, learned counsel for the respondent explains that even in the original advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates, it was declared that the candidates should submit their certificates of educational qualification. Those who did not submit the certificates along with their applications, were given an opportunity by General Circular, to submit certificates in respect of their educational qualification after the examination, but before publication of the result. Though the petitioner no.1 claims to have submitted his IA certificate in response to the General Circular of the DIG Police, but such claim has been specifically denied by the respondents in as much as there is no other supportive document to confirm that he had actually submitted his IA certificate prior to the publication of the result. Even if the petitioner no.1 had declared in his original application that he was an Intermediate of Arts (IA), but in absence of the requisite supportive document in proof of such assertion, no fault can be found with the selection committee for not awarding extra marks for IA examination. The controversy raised by the petitioners regarding the stand taken by the respondents on the point of minimum cut off marks does not merit any attention in view of the fact that even if 17 points is taken as the minimum cut off marks, then also, the total points earned by petitioners is 16. The judgment in the case of Sohail Khan (supra) is therefore not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Furthermore, the petitioners have claimed relief on the basis of the selection panel the process for which was admittedly, concluded in the year 2005. The petitioners, in my opinion, cannot be allowed to be re-open the selection process which has already been concluded long ago. Furthermore, the petitioners have claimed relief on the basis of the selection panel the process for which was admittedly, concluded in the year 2005. The petitioners, in my opinion, cannot be allowed to be re-open the selection process which has already been concluded long ago. The petitioner’s claim for reopening the concluded selection process cannot be entertained. In the light of the above discussions, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.