Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1011 (JHR)

Shambhu Nath Mehta v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter for the post of Constable pursuant to advertisement no. 1 of 2004 claiming himself to be in the Home Guard category. 3. According to the petitioner, he had furnished his duly completed application form under the advertisement no. 1 of 2004 in which the cut-off date prescribed was 15.2.2004. He had participated in the physical and written test and also under went training of Home Guard. However, when the results of the successful candidates were declared, though his name was in the list of successful candidates but his case was kept pending. In such circumstances, he has approached this Court in the year, 2012. 4. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties during the pendency of the writ application. The grounds of rejection have also been communicated to the petitioner by way of letter dated 18.12.2012 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Koderma, Annexure-6 to I.A. No. 286 of 2013. It has been indicated in the said letter itself that the last date of cut-off for making such an application was 15.2.2004. The petitioner in fact had undergone Home Guard training for the period 17.3.2004 to 6.5.2004 much after the cut-off date. In such circumstances, his case was kept pending at the relevant point of time and after examining the relevant records, it has been indicated that no appointment can be given to the petitioner at this stage on account of the aforesaid reasons. 5. According to the petitioner, certain similarly situated persons, named at paragraph no. 13 of the writ petition, who had submitted their Home Guard Training Certificate at the time of interview, have been given appointment though the said Certificate was to be submitted at the time of furnishing their application by the cut-off date under the advertisement in question. 6. In response to the said statement, the respondents in their affidavit have stated that the petitioner in fact had not submitted the Home Guard Training Certificate by cut-off date of such advertisement. The petitioner as such had undergone training, which started from 17.3.2004. In such circumstances, the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Constable under advertisement no. The petitioner as such had undergone training, which started from 17.3.2004. In such circumstances, the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a Constable under advertisement no. 1 of 2004, which according to them, have also become time barred as per the communication contained at Annexure-B dated 18.8.2010 issued by the D.I.G. (Personnel) under the office of Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the cut-off date for making application under the advertisement no. 1 of 2004 was 15.2.2004. If the petitioner was inclined to participate in the exercise for selection of a constable under the said advertisement in the Home Guard category, he was required to furnish the certificate of Home Guard Training at the time of making his application by the cut-off date. In the present case, it has been found that the petitioner had not started Home Guard Training by the cut-off date. His training, as a matter of fact, started from 17.3.2004 and got completed on 6.5.2004 much after the cut-off date, whereafter he had been issued such Home Guard Training Certificate. The respondents have contested the case of the petitioner on the ground that, in the instant case, the petitioner had not even started the training of Home Guard by the last cut-off date in terms of the advertisement published by them. 8. Though it is alleged by the petitioner that appointments of similarly situated candidates to the petitioner, who had not submitted their Home Guard Training Certificate at the time of cut-off date, have been made, but it is well settled that this Court would not issue any directions to perpetuate illegality, if any, which has been committed by the respondents. In such circumstances, in the year 2012, in a case arising out of advertisement no. 1 of 2004 where the respondents have taken stand that the appointment/selection process of the constable has become time barred vide Annexure-B dated 18.8.2010 enclosed to the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction as no case is made out for such issuance of writ or direction upon the respondents. 9. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.