Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1011 (JHR)

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-10-07

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3026 of 2008, as his claim for appointment as a Police Constable under Advertisement no. 1 of 2004 was not being considered on the grounds that his height was 2 centimeters less than the standard height of 160 centimeters fixed for Backward Class Home-Guard category candidates. The petitioner claims that he has been working since 1989 as a Police Driver and is trained Home-guard. The writ petition was disposed of on 14th December, 2011 by learned Single Bench of this Court, Annexure-4. The judgment rendered is being quoted hereunder as well: “1) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suffice it will be for disposal of this writ petition, if a direction is given to the respondents to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the grievance/claim made through this writ petition sympathetically and in accordance with law. 2) I have heard counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that they have no much objection, if such a direction is given to the concerned authority to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the grievances ventilated in this writ petition in accordance with law, within the stipulated time, as given by this Court. 3) In view of these submissions, I hereby, direct respondent no. 1 through the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribagh to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the grievance/claim of the present petitioner with regard to relaxation of his height as per Rule 663(c) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, which is a discretionary power of the State of Jharkhand. The aforesaid officer/authority shall decide the claim of the petitioner keeping in mind that the petitioner is a Homeguard allegedly working since 1989 and also belonging to the backward classes. The decision will be taken by the aforesaid officer in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of an order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representatives. If the benefit is to be extended by the decision taken by the aforesaid officer in favour of the petitioner, then actual benefit of decision will be extended to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 4) In view of the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.” 3. The Respondent-Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range thereafter appears to have undertaken an exercise in which the petitioner was also heard and guidelines were also sought for from the Police Department. The petitioner once again made a claim that at the time of physical test he was found to be having 160 centimeters in height while after issuance of the selection letter upon remeasurement his height was found to be 158 centimeters and therefore his selection was rejected and no final appointment letter was issued. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 663(c) whereunder the Selection Board has power to grant relaxation of measurement in height or chest up to the extent of 2.5 centimeters since he had been serving the police department for 21 years. According to him, this ground qualifies as a special circumstance for granting the relaxation in height in exercise of the discretionary power vested under the selection body and as per the direction of the learned Single Judge upon the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range. 5. By the impugned order contained in Memo No. 2369 dated 1st September, 2012, Annexure-6, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, respondent no. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner as he found that there are no special reason for giving such relaxation and the case of the petitioner is that of a regular appointment. The impugned order has been justified by the respondent also through their counter affidavit on the same ground that the standard height required for Backward Class Home-guard Category Candidate under Advertisement no. 1 of 2004 was 160 centimeters while the petitioner had got 158 centimeters. The letter issued after the physical test upon the petitioner was only a provisional selection letter and was not appointment letter. However, appointment under Advertisement no. 1 of 2004 had been closed as per the decision of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand contained in letter dated 18th August, 2010 itself. Thereafter fresh Advertisement no. The letter issued after the physical test upon the petitioner was only a provisional selection letter and was not appointment letter. However, appointment under Advertisement no. 1 of 2004 had been closed as per the decision of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand contained in letter dated 18th August, 2010 itself. Thereafter fresh Advertisement no. 1 of 2010 had also been issued for recruitment of Police Constable and police drivers under the Respondent-State. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for relaxation as special circumstance was not made out. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the relevant documents which have been perused, there are two aspects which are to be noted hereunder: (i) Rule 663 which relates to selection of recruits prescribes minimum standard of height and chest in respect of various categories of candidates such as General Category, Scheduled Caste and Tribe; (ii) Rule 663(c) provides that the Selection Board is not precluded from selecting men over 27 years of age for special reasons, men beneath the standard of measurement, but it shall do so only on good grounds. Before enlistment the Deputy Inspector-General can give relaxation in height and chest by 2.5. centimeters only. 7. In the previous writ petition preferred by the petitioner, there was a specific observation made by learned Single Judge as is also quoted hereinabove, that the authority shall decide the claim of the petitioner keeping in mind that the petitioner is a Home-guard allegedly working since 1989 and also belonging to the Backward classes by taking a decision in accordance with law, rules, guidelines and policies. Perusal of the impugned order shows that though there is a discretion conferred under the provisions of the Rule, but the specific observation of the learned single judge in respect of service rendered by the petitioner since 1989 in the police department as a driver, belonging to the Home-guard and Backward Class Category does not seem to have attracted sufficient attention of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, respondent no.3. The impugned order concludes in an abrupt manner that no special circumstances have been made out for grant of such relaxation to the petitioner and the case is of regular recruitment. The impugned order concludes in an abrupt manner that no special circumstances have been made out for grant of such relaxation to the petitioner and the case is of regular recruitment. Rule 663 itself applies to regular recruitment and when statue provides for discretion upon the Selection Body to grant relaxation for good reasons and in special circumstances, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range does not seem to have taken into account these aforesaid aspects of the matter while taking such a decision. The decision making process therefore seems to have suffered on account of failing to consider the relevant factors and the reasons while arriving at a decision. 8. In such circumstances, this Court is left with only option to remand the matter to the respondent no. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after due application of mind to all relevant aspect of the matter including the observation made by learned Single Judge in the previous writ petition in the case of the petitioner. Since the judgment passed in the case of the petitioner earlier vide Annexure-4 dated 14th December, 2011 was rendered in the writ petition preferred in 2008 itself the ground taken by the respondent that the appointment process had come to an end by virtue of the decision of the Director General of Police contained in letter dated 18th August, 2010 will have no bearing upon the facts of the present case as the cause of action had been raised earlier to the said date. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range to take a fresh decision in accordance with law as aforesaid within a reasonable period preferably within 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Consequently, I.A. No. 4045 of 2014 for early hearing stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.