Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1206 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-11

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.03.2013 whereby his representation seeking appointment on the post of constable has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to advertisement no. 01/2004, the petitioner appeared in the selection process and he had cleared the physical as well as the written test. However, since the petitioner was not offered appointment, he moved a representation before the concerned authority. As the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the concerned authority, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4396 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 04.02.2013 directing the respondent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh representation also. The representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected by order dated 31.03.2013 and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the proceeding of W.P.(S) No. 4396 of 2012, the respondents filed a counter affidavit in which they took a stand that, the cut off marks for appointment in the category to which the petitioner belongs was 14 marks and the petitioner had also obtained 14 marks however, the petitioner was not offered appointment as by Memo No. 2026 dated 18.08.2011, appointment from the panel prepared pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2004 was stopped by the order of the Director General of Police. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the present proceeding, the respondents have taken a stand in the impugned order dated 31.03.2013 that since, the petitioner has obtained only 14 marks as against 17 marks which was the cut off marks for appointment in the category in which the petitioner has been seeking appointment, the petitioner was not offered appointment and thus, the stand taken by the respondent – State of Jharkhand is apparently contrary and therefore, the impugned order dated 31.03.2013 is liable to be interfered with. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State of Jharkhand has resisted the claim of the petitioner on the plea that since after 18.08.2011, the appointment was stopped by the order of the Director General of Police, the petitioner could not be offered appointment on the post of constable. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State of Jharkhand has resisted the claim of the petitioner on the plea that since after 18.08.2011, the appointment was stopped by the order of the Director General of Police, the petitioner could not be offered appointment on the post of constable. 6. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the petitioner has taken a specific plea in paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of the writ petition, which are extracted below: 8. “That the respondents thereafter passed the order vide its Letter No. 1171/Go. Dated 31.03.2013 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, on the ground that he has got only 14 points while the Cut Off marks of the same category for selection was 17 and also on the ground that his claim is time barred in view of the order contained in Memo No. 2026 dated 18.08.2011. 9. That the petitioner humbly submits & states that the order contained in Letter No. 1171/Go. Dated 31.03.2013 is wrong, unreasonable, bad and illegal.” 7. I find that there is no material on record which would indicate the date of the first representation preferred by the petitioner at the time when petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4396 of 2012. Also, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner though, a counter affidavit was filed in the earlier proceeding, a copy of the said counter affidavit has not been brought on record by the petitioner in the present proceeding. From the impugned order dated 31.03.2013, I find that the appointment pursuant to the advertisement No. 01/2004 was stopped by the order of the Director General of Police by order dated 18.08.2011. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had moved a representation before the authority prior to 18.08.2011. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, the petitioner is granted a liberty to approach the respondent authority bringing on record the representation filed by the petitioner in the earlier proceeding as well as the counter affidavit filed in the proceeding of W.P.(S) No. 4396 of 2012. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, the petitioner is granted a liberty to approach the respondent authority bringing on record the representation filed by the petitioner in the earlier proceeding as well as the counter affidavit filed in the proceeding of W.P.(S) No. 4396 of 2012. It is made clear that if it is found that the petitioner had represented prior to 18.08.2011 and the cut off marks for appointment in the category in which the petitioner had sought appointment was 14 marks and the petitioner had also obtained 14 marks, the petitioner's case for appointment on the post of constable would be considered by the respondent authority inspite of the fact that by order dated 18.08.2011, the appointment from the panel prepared pursuant to advertisement no. 1/2004 was stopped by the order of the Director General of Police. 8. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Petition disposed of.