Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 786 (JHR)

Amrendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-28

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought for the cancellation of the competitive examination held on 8th January, 2012 pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st October, 2011 published under the authority of the Director, Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, Ranchi for selection of Village Level Worker (in short VLW) in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner has further prayed for staying the entire selection process and for a direction upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in the merit list of Pakur District for which he has made the application. 3. From perusal of Annexure-1 i.e. advertisement dated 21th October, 2011 and the application form, it appears that the petitioner himself had filled in and submitted for consideration of his candidature for the district-Sahebganj including district code at serial no. 14 in his application form. In all over places of the application form of the petitioner, he himself indicated that he is resident of Sahebganj and application was made for Sahebganj as indicated in the said application. 4. The petitioner's case is that he had submitted the Bank Draft along with the said application to concerned authority issued from district-Pukar and as per which his case ought to have been considered for the district of Pakur. 5. However, from perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and upon hearing to the counsel for the parties, it appears that not only the petitioner filled in the application form in the relevant places in the application form the district as district-Sahebganj but also his admit card was issued at the center in the district of Sahebganj obviously against the vacancy of district-Sahebganj. The examination was held on 8th January, 2012 and result has already been published on 03.02.2012, but the petitioner has moved this Court on 11th May, 2012 trying to make out a case that the petitioner's candidature has wrongly been considered as a candidate for the district-Sahebganj, where he figured as below in the merit list and might not be entitled for the appointment. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and also submitted that as per the advertisement a candidate has to apply for a particular district in the application form itself and petitioner has indicated as district of Sahebganj and, therefore, admit card was also issued to the petitioner for the district of Sahebganj, where he appeared in the said examination. It is submitted that result was published in which his name appeared at serial no. 144 in the merit list and as such, he is not entitled for any appointment against the vacancy in the Sahebganj district for the post of VLW. 7. Upon hearing to the counsels for the parties and after going through the averments made in the writ petition, I find that writ petitioner has failed to make out a case that according to the terms of advertisement and the application form submitted by him, he should have been considered for appointment to the district of Pakur for the post of VLW. Moreover, the examination was held on January, 2012 and petitioner had knowingly participated in the district of Sahebganj and result of the examination has already been published on 03.02.2012. It has been informed that appointment is going to take place in a couple of days. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is, therefore, not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.