Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 279 (JHR)

Md. Sohail Khan v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-30

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2011
Order This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking the relief by way of issuance of direction to the respondents to promote the petitioners or to consider their cases alongwith other persons who have been given promotion on the basis of the examination held on 16.5.2003. 2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed as constables in the Police Force. The petitioners were sponsored by their respective S.Ps of the districts for appearing in the departmental examination held on 16.5.2003 for the post of Steno/ASI. After appearing in the examination, the petitioner no. 1 (General category) had secured 195 marks and petitioner no. 2 (Backward category) secured 111 marks in the said examination. It is not in dispute that the last candidates who were appointed were selected with 210 marks under the general category; 62 marks (sq. 31 marks (ST category) and 187 marks (OBC category). It is not in dispute that there was no cut off marks for the appointment of ASI in different categories. All the vacancies were filed up according to the highest marks secured by the candidates. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners appeared in stenos/ASIs examination and thereafter they could not get the qualifying marks. The petitioners have also claimed that he should have been appointed as typist in view of Rule 749. Appendix 42 Vol. 3 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. When petitioners selection was not made this writ petition has been filed. 3. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents on the ground that the petitioners did not obtain qualifying marks and the vacancies under the category of general candidates were filled up to 210 marks obtained by the candidates. Thus, these petitioners were having less marks so they could not be appointed as ASI/Steno. It was further alleged that the examination was conducted only for the Stenographer/ASI. Ultimately, the respondents has sought dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon Appendix 42 (12) made under Rule 749 of the Police Manual in which it is provided that the candidates who failed in shorthand but have the requisite speed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners have relied upon Appendix 42 (12) made under Rule 749 of the Police Manual in which it is provided that the candidates who failed in shorthand but have the requisite speed. may be recruited as typist/Assistant Sub Inspector, but those who have not the requisite speed shall be reverted to their original post. He further pointed out that the test for typing was not conducted by the respondents, so the petitioners could not appear in the test. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contention and contended that the test conducted was for the Stenographers/ASI and it was not for typist; he further relied upon representation of the petitioner which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition in which he has given reference of the examination indicating the name of the examination-departmental examination Stenographers/ASI exam. Thus, he further pointed out that there was no examination conducted for typist. Hence the petitioners' case could not be considered for the ASI posts. 6. I have gone through the entire records. From perusal of the record, it reveals that examination was conducted for Stenographer/ASI which was not combined departmental examination for Steno/ ASI and typists/ASI. It is also to be kept in mind that these tests are conducted when vacancies occur in the department and if vacancies of stenographers occur, it can only be filed up by stenographers and not by typist. If vacancy for the post of typist occurs, then the departmental exam would be conducted. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that there should be always a combined test for Stenographers/ASI. These tests are always conducted according to the availability of vacancies. The petitioners have appeared in the said examination for the post of ASI/Steno. Appendix 42(12) would apply to a case where a combined test for the post of Steno/ASI and Typist/ASI has been conducted by the respondents. Where the respondents had conducted the test only for the post of Steno cum ASI and there is no vacancy advertised for the post of Typist/ ASI, Appendix 42(12) would not apply. In the instant case, no combined test for Steno/ASI and Typist/ASI had been conducted by the respondents. So Rule (sic Appendix ?) 42(12) is not applicable to the case in hand. 7. In the instant case, no combined test for Steno/ASI and Typist/ASI had been conducted by the respondents. So Rule (sic Appendix ?) 42(12) is not applicable to the case in hand. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find the claim of the petitioner justifiable on merit. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. 9. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.