Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1213 (PAT)

Ajay Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2011-06-28

AKHILESH CHANDRA, T.MEENA KUMARI

body2011
JUDGEMENT 1. Since all the learned counsel appearing in batch matters are agreed, the abovementioned batch matters are heard and disposed of in view of the fact that supplementary affidavits have been filed wherever it is necessary. It is the case where the appellants have chosen to assail the post recruitment process which commenced for the post of police constables in view of the advertisement made by the State Government in the year 2004. 2. The case of the appellants-writ petitioners was that the advertisements have been issued without even ascertaining the actual number of vacancy. However, the last selected candidates, who have secured 15 marks, have been subjected to process of selection by the State Government and their names find place in the merit list as well as in the selection list. Subsequently, State Government had issued Advertisement Nos. 1 of 2009 and 2 of 2009 for appointment of constables in the Bihar Police Force. 3. Learned Single Judge heard the matter and observed that the selection process and consequent appointments in pursuance of the advertisements of 2004 have been finally closed and State Government, i.e., respondent-authority cannot be directed to consider the appellants-petitioners case in the present selection process after relaxing the age bar. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in the batch matters have submitted that even though the number of vacancies had been increased, the petitioners and the appellants who were subjected to regular examination and selection process, their names did not find place in the merit list. 5. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed in the L.P.A. by the State sworn in by one Anupama Nilekar Chandra, Dy. Inspector General of Police, Personnel and Administration, Bihar, Patna, states that nearly 23 Range Selection Boards were constituted across the various districts. Paragraph-4 of the supplementary counter affidavit reads as follows: "Para-4. That it would be relevant to point out that a number of writ petitions were being filed in this Honble Court. Considering the grievances of many petitioners, Police Headquarters issued letter No. 116/Law and Order dated 2.2.2009 allowing candidates who figured in the published merit/waiting list and who had valid reasons of not receiving information of their appointment on time to represent their cases before Range DIGs by 28.2.2009 and actions were taken accordingly. Considering the grievances of many petitioners, Police Headquarters issued letter No. 116/Law and Order dated 2.2.2009 allowing candidates who figured in the published merit/waiting list and who had valid reasons of not receiving information of their appointment on time to represent their cases before Range DIGs by 28.2.2009 and actions were taken accordingly. Thus, it is clear that all out efforts have been made by the Police Headquarters to fulfil the vacancies and complete the recruitment process at the earliest." 6. Perusal of paragraph-4 of the supplementary counter affidavit would indicate that recruitment process continued even in the year 2008 for filling up vacancies in accordance with the advertisement issued in the year 2004. 7. It is stated in paragraph-5 of the said affidavit which is quoted below: "Para-5. It was revealed that even though several merit/waiting lists had been published by the respective Chairpersons of Recruitment Boards, few vacancies still remained despite their sustained efforts. Direction was issued to ensure that wherever successful candidates could not be appointed in view of late receipt of joining letters or due to delay in other verification formalities despite finalisation of merit list/ waiting list before 27.7.2008, such cases should be examined and if the concerned candidates qualify for recruitment, they should invariably be appointed so that there is no hardships to genuine candidates. However, it was clearly conveyed in the said meeting that as several Recruitment Boards had filled up the advertised vacancies, there was no requirement for such Boards to undertake a fresh exercise. In any case, no new merit/ waiting list should be published." 8. It is also stated in paragraph-9 of the supplementary counter affidavit which is extracted as under: "Para-9. That, however, it is relevant to mention that the vacancy reports submitted by the Superintendents of Police/Commandants for Advertisement Nos. 1/2009 and 2/2009 prima facie reflects that the remaining vacancies have already been included in the vacancies of Advertisement No. 1/2009 and 2/2009 but to confirm it a consolidated report has been sought from the Field Offices regarding vacancies of Advertisement Nos. 1/2004, 2/2004 and 3/2004 which are still remaining or which are not included in Advertisement No. 1/2009 or 2/2009." 9. 1/2004, 2/2004 and 3/2004 which are still remaining or which are not included in Advertisement No. 1/2009 or 2/2009." 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that such statement would indicate that Advertisement No. 1/2009 and Advertisement No. 2/2009 were issued without even ascertaining the number of remaining vacancies and those were not included in the Advertisement No. 1/2009 and Advertisement No. 2/2009. 10. Perusal of paragraph-9 would further indicate that a report was called from the Field Offices regarding Advertisement Nos. 1/2004, 2/2004 and 3/2004 which are not included in Advertisements No. 1/2009 and 2/2009. Perusal of paragraph-9 would also indicate that Advertisements No. 1/ 2004, 2/2004 and 3/2004 were issued by the State without ascertaining the exact number of vacancies in view of the fact that a consolidated report was sought from the Field Offices regarding vacancies of Advertisements No. 1/2004, 2/2004 and 3/ 2004. 11. In view of the statement made in paragraph-9 of the supplementary counter affidavit, we think it proper to give a direction to the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, for issuance of a direction to the Director General of Police to ascertain the actual number of vacancies available on the date of publication of Advertisements of the year 2004 and also prepare a fresh merit list of the candidates who were declared eligible after the regular recruitmen process and the same shall be consid ered in accordance with Rules. The entire process shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The following I.As. being numbered 6559/2009, 2398 of 2010, 2399 of 2010 and 531 of 2011 in LP.A. No. 831 of 2009 and I.A. Nos. 4185 of 2009, 569 of 2011, 653 of 2011, 1313 of 2011, 7668 of 2011, 891 of 2011 and 1254 of 2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 19 of 2010 and I.A. No. 1656 of 2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 499 of 2009, I.A. Nos. 695 of 2011, 1380 of 2011, 2074 of 2011, 2075 of 2011, 2076 of 2011, 2077 of 2011, 2604 of 2011, 2603 of 2011, 2372 of 2011, 2373 of 2011, 2476 of 2011, 630 of 2011, 10546 of 2010, 96 of 2011, 95 of 2011, 8302 of 2010, 10442 of 2010, 526 of 2011, 7517 of 2010, 10547 of 2010 in C.W.J.C. 19 of 2010 and I.A. Nos. 4163 of 2011, 4165 of 2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 19 of 2010 filed on 24.6.2011, have been filed by the petitioners as intervenors on the ground that they also appeared in the examination and have undergone the process of selection. At the request of the counsel for the I.As., the I.As. have been directed to be converted into C.W.J.C. by making payment of court fees and giving necessary materials as ordered by this Court on 5.4.2011. However, Registry has reported in these cases that though time has been granted finally for compliance of the order of this Court and also removing any defects as pointed out on or before 28th May, 2011, defects have not been removed within the time specified. 13. Secondly, in the following I.A. Nos. 695 of 2011, 1380 of 2011, 2074 of 2011, 2075 of 2011, 2076 of 2011, 2077 of 2011, 2604 of 2011, 2603 of 2011, 2372 of 2011, 2373 of 2011, 2476 of 2011, 630 of 2011, 10546 of 2010, 96 of 2011, 95 of 2011, 8302 of 2010, 10442 of 2010, 526 of 2011, 7517 of 2010 and 10547 of 2010 of C.W.J.C. No. 19 of 2010 and fresh I.A. Nos. 4163 of 2011 and 4165 of 2011 filed on 24.6.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 19 of 2010, the petitioners did not turn up for conversion of the aforesaid I.As. as ordered by this Court on 5.4.2011. 14. It is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the aforementioned I.As. that sufficient time may be granted to the I.A. petitioners to comply the order passed by this Court for removing defects so as to enable them to avail the relief granted in the order passed by this Court today. 15. Having taken note of such, we are of the opinion that it would suffice if time is granted to the abovementioned LA. petitioners to comply the order passed by this Court on 5.4.2011 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, we make it clear that in absence of compliance of the Courts order, the abovementioned I.A. petitioners will not be entitled for any relief as granted by this Court today and the I.As. shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench.