Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 80 (JHR)

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-13

DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK

body2010
ORDER : D.G.R. Patnaik, J. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to publish the result of the petitioner and to issue appointment letter for his joining on the post of Constable. 3. The ground on which the petitioner has claimed the aforesaid relief is that the petitioner in response to the advertisement issued by the respondents, had submitted his candidature by filing his application and upon being called, he had appeared at the physical test. Besides giving his physical measurement, he had also participated in each of the events carried out in course of the physical test, namely, short put, long jump and high jump and thereafter he was given Admit Card to appear at the written test and from the result of the written test, he has been declared successful having attained the qualifying marks on which the other candidates have been selected. 4. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner had though appeared before the concerned authorities for the physical test, but except the event of high jump, he did not participate in the other two events, namely, short put and long jump and as such, his name did not come within the zone of consideration. 5. It is sought to be explained that the petitioner having not qualified in the physical test, did not come within the zone of the consideration for the written test, but due to ignorance and inadvertence, Admit Card was issued to him and he was allowed to appear at the written test, in which the marks secured by him was also declared. 6. From the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, it appears that as per the procedure, candidates who did not qualify in the physical test, cannot be allowed to appear for the written test. Considering the fact that the petitioner was allowed to appear at the written test, prime facie suggests that the petitioner had qualified at the physical test also. The master chart which was prepared at the time of conducting the physical test of the candidates, was called for. Considering the fact that the petitioner was allowed to appear at the written test, prime facie suggests that the petitioner had qualified at the physical test also. The master chart which was prepared at the time of conducting the physical test of the candidates, was called for. The extract of the master chart (Annexure-A) produced by the respondents indicates that in column 10 which refers to the event, namely, high jump, a letter 'P' has been mentioned against the name of the petitioner. No indication whatsoever by way of any remarks appears in column 9 and 11, which related to the two other events, namely, short put and high jump. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents would explain that the letter 'P' indicates 'Pass' and since there is no confirmation by putting any such remarks in respect of the two other events, it is deemed that the petitioner had not passed in the physical test. 8. Counsel for the petitioner controverts the aforesaid submission by referring to the letter issued by the Surgeant Major, Koderma to the petitioner (Annexure-5), wherein the reason for not publishing the result of the petitioner in the merit list has been explained in terms which suggests that since in the master chart there is no entry indicating either of that the petitioner had appeared of either having at the test or of having passed the test or not passed in the two events, namely, high jump and short put, therefore, the petitioner's name could not be entered in the merit list. 9. Learned Counsel explains that the aforesaid explanation indicates that merely because there was no entry in respect of the other two events in the master chart, the respondents have omitted the name of the petitioner. 10. The above explanation, according to the learned Counsel, does not confirm that the petitioner had not appeared at the aforesaid events and had not qualified in the physical test. Learned Counsel adds further mat as per practice, the names of the candidates who appear at the physical test are initially written down in the master chart and in the corresponding column-12, the signatures of the attending candidates are taken and the various columns are subsequently filled up. The petitioner, had therefore, no occasion to verify the master chart at the time when the blank columns were filled up after conducing the physical test. 11. The petitioner, had therefore, no occasion to verify the master chart at the time when the blank columns were filled up after conducing the physical test. 11. From the facts it emerges on the basis of the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties that admittedly the petitioner had appeared for the physical test on the date fixed, before the concerned authorities of the respondents. This is confirmed not only by the signature of the petitioner appearing in the master chart but also by the remarks mentioned in column 10 of the chart. The respondents ought to have explained the meaning of the letter "P' as recorded in column-10 of the master chart against the petitioner's name, to mean "Pass". If this is the explanation, then it was expected that in the remaining two columns appropriate remarks should have been written to suggest either that the candidate had appeared at the test or the candidate had failed or that the candidate had not appeared at all. The respondents have not placed on record any such procedure or guideline as to how the various columns of the master chart should be filled up and if any column is left blank in the master chart, what would such blank remark indicate. The explanation as appearing in Annexure-5, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, does not confirm that the petitioner had not appeared at the test or that he has not passed at the test. On the other hand, the fact that the petitioner was given an Admit Card to enable him to appear in the written test and he was allowed to appear in the written test, would give a legitimate inference that the petitioner had qualified at the physical test and it was only thereafter that he was allowed to appear at the written test, in which he had secured the qualifying marks sufficient enough for considering his appointment. 12. The plea taken by the respondents that grant of Admit Card to the petitioner for appearing in the written test was due to inadvertence, does not convince and does not appeal to reason. 13. In the light of the above stated facts, I find merit in this writ petition. 12. The plea taken by the respondents that grant of Admit Card to the petitioner for appearing in the written test was due to inadvertence, does not convince and does not appeal to reason. 13. In the light of the above stated facts, I find merit in this writ petition. The concerned authorities of the respondents are directed to publish the result of the petitioner in the light of the marks secured by him at the written examination and if the petitioner is found to have secured the qualifying marks upon which other candidates have been granted appointment letters, then to consider the petitioner's case also and act accordingly. This exercise must be carried out by the concerned authorities of the respondents within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 15. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.