Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1233 (JHR)

Md. Zahid Aslam v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-13

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
Judgment The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction upon the respondent no. 5 for considering the representation seeking appointment on the post of constable. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the counter-affidavit the plea taken by the respondents is not sustainable in as much as, the marks obtained by the petitioner in written test has not been taken into account and the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected considering the marks allotted to the petitioner for height and educational qualification. 4. I find that in the counter-affidavit, the respondents have taken the following stand: 8 “ That it is humbly stated and submitted that in this writ application the petitioner has prayed for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for his appointment in the post of Constable for the Dhanbad Police Force. The fact of the case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Male Non-Home Guard General Category. In this category, the last persons, who has been selected pursuant to second merit list has got 21 marks, when the petitioner got only 20 marks. Mr. Rajesh Roshan is the last persons selected as per second merit list, details relating to him are as follows: Roll No: 27784 Name: Rajesh Roshan, Son of Sri Ram Padarath Singh, Permanent Address-Village Gadua, Post- Chakandar, P.S. Chewada, District-Sekhpura; Male General Non-Home Guard; Date of Birth: 05.02.1988; Education: Intermediate(Marks-07); Height 183.5 (Marks-14); Total Marks: 21 9. That it is humbly stated and submitted that the petitioner got only 20 marks, details relating to the petitioner are as follows: Roll No: 23388 Name: Md. Zahid Aslam, son of Md. Aslam, Permanent Address- Village Turkbigha, Post- Turkbigha, P.S. Nasriganj, District- Rohtas; Male General Non-Home Guard; Date of Birth: 10.01.1988; Education: Intermediate (Marks-06); Height: 182 (Marks-14); Total Marks: 20.” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that a Resolution dated 12.11.2001 was issued with respect to the procedure which was to be adopted for making appointment on the post of constable. Paragraph 7 of the said Resolution clearly speaks that the written test would be qualifying test and the marks obtained in the written test would not be considered for making final selection. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition. Paragraph 7 of the said Resolution clearly speaks that the written test would be qualifying test and the marks obtained in the written test would not be considered for making final selection. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.