Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 223 (JHR)

Ratan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-18

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2011
Order This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: . (a) for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.8.2007 passed by respondent no. 4 vide memo no. 1938 whereby and whereunder respondents have cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the post of constable; (b) for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable as the petitioner having qualified all the tests, declared successful and comes within the zone of consideration. (c) for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for which your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law. 2. In a nutshell, the petitioner's case is that the State Government published an advertisement on 13.1.2004 in the daily newspaper for appointment of constables in the district of Hazaribagh, Koderma, Giridih and Chatra. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the same. Thereafter, the selection process completed. The petitioner alongwith other candidates was selected finally on 22.2.2006. This fact has been stated in para 9 of the writ petition. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit. Rather, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that on• scrutiny it was found that his name has been inserted after removing the page. Later on, his name was missing from the list. Later on, the said selection was cancelled by the competent authority. Again, a fresh selection process was started in the year 2006. The said order of the respondents was challenged before the High Court by some of the candidates who preferred the W.P.(S) No. 1242 of 2006, WP(S) 7236 of 2005, WP(S) No. 226 of 2006 and WP(S) No. 368 of 2006 (Krishnaji and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others) against the cancellation of the result prepared by the respondents. The Division 8ench of this Court allowed the writ petition and the fresh selection process was cancelled. Pursuant to the decision, the petitioner and other persons were allowed to join and later on 2.8.2007, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled alleging that there was some interpolation in the master chart Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed ,by the petitioner. Pursuant to the decision, the petitioner and other persons were allowed to join and later on 2.8.2007, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled alleging that there was some interpolation in the master chart Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed ,by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner from service. Learned counsel further contended that the authorities did not consider the fact that it was only after holding of the enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the appointment and after the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnaji and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others [ 2006(4) JLJR 702 ], the petitioner was asked to join the service. Learned counsel further submitted that the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner from service on the basis of the fresh enquiry report is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State refuted the contention and contended that it was only on the basis of the interpolation found in the master chart that the appointment of some of the persons have been cancelled after holding enquiry. 4. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to discuss the judgment of Krishnaji & Others (supra). In that case, some of the candidates challeged the cancellation of the first selection of their candidature for appointment as constables and they also sought, mandamus not to appoint by way of fresh selection process. The writ petition was allowed and it was observed in the said writ petition as follows: "11. There is nothing in the report" of the Inquiry Officer or material on record to the affect that the written test conducted is vitiated in any manner. Therefore, the irregularities that have come to light are either in the recording of the physical standards of the candidates or their date of birth and Home Guard/Sports certificate. Inquiry Officer has identified all such persons numbering 932 in whose favour such manipulations have been made. The total number of candidates in all the districts being much large, the identified candidates constitutes only a small proportion of the total candidates. Inquiry Officer has identified all such persons numbering 932 in whose favour such manipulations have been made. The total number of candidates in all the districts being much large, the identified candidates constitutes only a small proportion of the total candidates. In view of the dictum of the judgment of the' Apex Court noticed above, we are of the opinion that doctrine of proportionality envisages by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment is attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. Such of the candidates who have successfully qualified and secured place in the final merit/select list without indulging in any misconduct or being beneficiary of any manipulation cannot and should not suffer. We therefore, allow these writ petitions with the following directions: (a) order impugned dated 10.12.2005 and notification no. 106 dated 16.1.2006 cancelling the selection of the candidates for the post of constables for districts of Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih initiated pursuant to the advertisement notice No. 1/04 are hereby quashed. Memo No. 43/P dated 16.1.2006 for fresh physical and educational test' is also quashed; (b) respondents are directed to make appointment according to select/ merit list of successful candidates declared successful in the four districts of the State, namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih against the advertised vacancies excluding 932 candidates identified by the inquiry officer and found to be beneficiaries of malpractices during the selection. Let the appointment of such candidates be made within two months; (c) respondents are further directed to complete the inquiry/department proceedings against Shri C.P. Kiran, the then Superintendent of Police, Chatra-cum-Chairman, Constable Recruitment Committee-3 or any other officer involved in malpractice in the recruitment of constables, within a period of three months if not already concluded and take appropriate action in accordance with rules depending upon the outcome of the inquiry." 5. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner was allowed to join and it is alleged that the petitioner did not fall within 932 candidates who were found by the enquiry officer guilty of malpractices and irregularities. Later on, the service of the writ petitioner was terminated vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the competent authority and on the basis of his detailed report the petitioner's selection was cancelled. Later on, the service of the writ petitioner was terminated vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the competent authority and on the basis of his detailed report the petitioner's selection was cancelled. From perusal of the judgment, it is revealed that the appointment was not to be given to those 932 candidates who were identified as guilty of malpractices and irregularities. The petitioner has also alleged in its writ petition that the petitioner had not been identified in the inquiry report placed before the Division Bench within the category of 932 candidates. The said averments has not been rebutted by the respondents. The learned counsel for the State could not demonstrate me that the petitioner did fall within 932 candidates who were debarred by the court. It is also the admitted case that the petitioner was allowed to join the post of constable and pursuant to the appointment letter issued after delivery of the judgment by the Division Bench and thereafter the services of the petitioner was cancelled again holding him guilty of misconduct. In the case of the appellant, he was also given appointment and he joined •the post as constable after a month, show cause was issued to him and his candidature was cancelled because of interpolation in the master chart. He filed the writ petition before this Court. The respondents took the same plea which has been taken in this case. The case of the petitioner was similar to the case of Ranjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand [ 2009(4) JLJR 543 ]. The Hon'ble Court while following the dictum of the Division Bench in the case of Krishnaji and Others (supra) allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal of the appellant from service and it was further directed to the respondents to allow the appellant to join the post of constable. In the case of the petitioner, the facts are similar and the case involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjay Kumar Singh (supra). 6. In the case of the petitioner, the facts are similar and the case involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ranjay Kumar Singh (supra). 6. I am also of the view that after pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Krishnaji (supra) the respondents had no right to again cancel the appointment of the other candidates who did not fall within the category of 932 candidates. 7. Considering the entire facts of the case as discussed above, the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.8.2007 (Annexure-6) is quashed and I further direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the 'post expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order as constable in accordance with law. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for the wages during the period he did not discharge his duties under the respondents. No order as to costs.