Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 466 (JHR)

Rohit Raj v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-06-07

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT: In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to consider them for their appointments on the post of Police Constables in Indian Reserve Battalion-5, Gumla. The claim of the petitioners is that they were declared successful for their selection after passing through the physical test and other tests prescribed for the selection. The petitioners were also issued call letters, but in spite of their due selection, they have not been appointed till date. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioners were initially selected for consideration of their appointments by the Selection Committee and call letters were issued to the petitioners. The said selection was subject to the physical verification and the verification of educational and other certificates. The call letters were sent to them with the conditions that the candidates have to produce their certificates and have to appear for their physical verification and their appointments and joining shall be subject to the said verification. The respondents, accordingly, appeared for their verification after receiving the call letters. On verification, the petitioner Rohit Raj was found to be non-Graduate and as such one mark was reduced from his marks, which was allotted to him by mistake. The cut-off-mark of the selected candidates was 11, but after reduction of one mark, which was allotted to Rohit Raj by mistake, his total marks remained 10 and as such he was not selected. The other petitioners could not get the cut-off-mark in their selection due to their lesser height or other reasons. It has been further stated that issuance of a call letter to any candidate does not confer any right of appointment. The said call letter itself was conditional and the petitioners did not fulfill the required conditions and have not obtained the cut-off-mark. 3. Dr. S. N. Pathak, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that once the petitioners were selected and call letters were issued to them, their appointment cannot be denied. The respondents are estopped from refusing appointment and joining of the petitioners in view of the application of the principal of legitimate expectation. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of this Court in Smt. Dulari Lakra Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [C.W.J.C No. 2268/1995(R)]. The respondents are estopped from refusing appointment and joining of the petitioners in view of the application of the principal of legitimate expectation. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of this Court in Smt. Dulari Lakra Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [C.W.J.C No. 2268/1995(R)]. It has been submitted that in the said case, call letter was issued to the petitioner, but due to difference in the re-measurement of height, she was denied appointment. This Court after hearing the parties and considering the facts and materials on record, held that the candidate had minimum prescribed height of a lady constable even after re-measurement and as such even if there was some difference in the height recorded after re-measurement, appointment cannot be denied. Learned counsel submitted that the said decision fully applies in this case. Since the respondents have issued call letter / appointment letter to the petitioners, they cannot refuse their appointment and joining. 4. I have heard learned counsel and perused the materials on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that the petitioners are entitled for their appointment and joining, as call letters have been issued to them after due selection. Learned counsel has termed the said letter as appointment letter and has contended that this appointment letter is final and the respondents are estopped from denying the petitioners' appointment. On perusal of the said letter, I find that it is a call letter containing several clauses and conditions. Clause 4 of the said letter specifically clarifies that this is a call letter and it cannot be treated as appointment letter and that the appointment is subject to physical verification and verification of other certificates and the medical test of the candidate. The stand of the respondents is that after verification, the petitioners could not get the cut-off-mark of 11 points. The candidates who have got the cut-off-mark or above, have been finally selected and appointed and the points obtained by the petitioners are below the cut-off-mark. The said fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. The only claim of the petitioners is that once they were selected and call letters were issued to them, the respondents are bound to appoint the petitioners by application of the principle of legitimate expectation. The said stand of the petitioners does not find support from the settled legal principles. The said fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. The only claim of the petitioners is that once they were selected and call letters were issued to them, the respondents are bound to appoint the petitioners by application of the principle of legitimate expectation. The said stand of the petitioners does not find support from the settled legal principles. The principle of legitimate expectation has also got no application in the instant case, as the selection of the petitioner No.1 was based on mistake of fact. A mistake of fact does not confer any legal right on any body. The decision of Smt. Dulari Lakra (Supra) referred to above by learned counsel for the petitioners has also got no application to the facts of the instant case. In that case, the appointment was not denied on the ground that she had not obtained the required cut-off-mark. I do not find that any cut-off-mark was prescribed in that case also. The said stand of learned counsel for the petitioners is, thus, not applicable to the facts of the instant case. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition. 5. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.