Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 572 (JHR)

Nitesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2014-05-02

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Judgment : This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.9.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.1149 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, declining to issue direction to the respondents for appointment of the appellant to the post of Constable for the district of Chatra, pursuant to the Advertisement No.1 of 2004. 2. The brief fact of the case is that Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 for the post of Constable in the State of Jharkhand was published on 13.1.2004 and the appellant applied for the said post under General-Non Home Guard Category having Roll no.10368. Initially in the Master Chart, the height of the appellant was recorded as 178.5 cm and his educational qualification is Intermediate. Accordingly, the appellant was assigned 19 points (12 points for height and 07 points for educational qualification). The cut off marks for appointment 2.as Constable in the General-Non Home Guard Category was also 19 points. The appellant was informed vide memo no. 359 dated 20.2.2009 to appear between 25.2.2009 to 15.3.2009 in the Police Line, Chatra along with his original certificate for verification, medical test and re-measurement. After the appellant appeared for the verification of the records, on re-measurement his height was found only 176.5 cm, which is 2 cm lesser than his height recorded in Master Chart and as such the point of the appellant came down to 18 points and due to which the appellant was not appointed. Being aggrieved by the non selection, the appellant has filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1149 of 2012. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appointment pursuant to the Advertisement No.1 of 2004 had been closed by a conscious decision dated 18.8.2010 taken by the respondents and in view of Annexure- A to the counter affidavit filed thereon, the appellant is not entitled to the direction sought for in the writ petition. 4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this intra-court appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as per Master Chart, the appellant has secured 19 marks and keeping in view the Master Chart, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents for re-measuring the appellant before the Medical Board. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as per Master Chart, the appellant has secured 19 marks and keeping in view the Master Chart, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents for re-measuring the appellant before the Medical Board. The learned counsel further submitted that re-measurement done by the respondents is not a correct one and even the persons 3.who secured lesser points than the appellant were selected and appointed and while so denying the same to the appellant, the order suffers from serious error and the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition . 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The appellant applied for the post of Constable under General-Non Home Guard Category and his height was initially recorded as 178.5 cm and his educational qualification is Intermediate and accordingly the appellant was assigned 19 points (12 points for height and 07 points for educational qualification) in the Master Chart. Vide memo dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure-2), the appellant was directed to appear along with the original educational certificate and residential proof for verification. By the same Annexure, the appellant was also directed that he has to appear for medical test and also for re-measurement of the height. While the appellant was re-measured, it was noticed that he was only 176.5 cm, which is 2 cm lesser than that of the initial measurement and accordingly the point assessed earlier came down to 18 points, which was lesser than the cut off marks for the General-Non Home Guard Category and, therefore the appellant was not selected. Further, it appears that by conscious decision dated 18.8.2010 the selection process, pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 2004 has been closed. 8. The appellant was re-measured in March, 2009, however he approached this Court only in the year 2012. In the aforesaid circumstance, the learned single Judge has rightly 4.dismissed the writ petition. 9. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.