Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 876 (JHR)

Sumanti Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-19

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This petitioner was a candidate for appointment to the post of Constable under advertisement no.1/04 issued by the Respondent-State authorities. She had applied for Hazaribag district as also for other districts. Petitioner was called for physical and written test and her name appeared in the merit list, thereafter, upon which selection letter was issued to her to appear before the authority for submission of original certificates, medical test at the Police Center, Hazaribag. The case of the petitioner was however rejected on 5.3.2007 vide Annexure-3 on the ground that she had applied for more than two districts in contravention of the conditions of the advertisement. Therefore, her candidature was rejected. After issuance of the said impugned letter on 5.3.2007 petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application in July, 2013 seeking quashing of the said letter and also a direction upon the respondents to appoint her on the said post by relying upon judgment passed in the case of Superintendent of Police, Koderma Vrs. Hemraj Prasad Mehta in L.P.A. No. 263 of 2012(Annexure-2) dated 6.3.2013 as also the judgment passed by the learned Single Judged of this Court in the case of Komali Gope Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.S No. 2281 of 2008 dated 6.5.2011(Annexure-5), in the case of Gulab Prasad Dangi Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.S No. 4684 of 2008 (Annexure-6) and in the case of Shambhu Kumar Ravi Vrs. The State of Jharkhand & others in W.P.S. No. 500 of 2013 (Annexure-7) dated 17.7.2013, all of which related to the same advertisement of the year 2004. The petitioner has taken a plea that such a ground for rejection of candidature of a person was not approved by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and only thereafter petitioner has also preferred this writ petition for similar relief as otherwise she would be discriminated. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner has moved this Court after a long delay of 6 years from the date of rejection of her candidature in March, 2007. The advertisement is of the year 2004 and the State has taken a conscious decision to close the selection process in August, 2010 itself. She has relied upon judgment rendered in similar case by this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Chaubey Vrs. The advertisement is of the year 2004 and the State has taken a conscious decision to close the selection process in August, 2010 itself. She has relied upon judgment rendered in similar case by this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Chaubey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others reported in 2014(2) JCR 30 Jhr as also in the case of Sunil Kumar Vrs. State of Jharkhand & others reported in 2014(1) JCR 55 Jhr to submit that the claim of such persons after much delay was not accepted, more so in the background of the fact indicated therein that the selection process under advertisement no. 1/04 had been closed by the conscious decision of the Director General of Police, Jharkhand through letter dated 18.8.2010 itself. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.G. Ashok & others Vrs. Kerala Public Service Commission & others reported in 2001(5) SC 419 where such condition of restriction to apply for a particular district was upheld and rejection of candidature on that ground as the disqualification factor was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the counsel for the respondents, candidature of such person was rejected as it contravened the laid down conditions in the advertisement that are required to apply for 1 district. 4. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the relevant materials on record including the judgments relied upon by the respective counsels, it appears that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from those relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner as in the instant case the petitioner after her candidature was rejected on 5.3.2007 has approached this Court in the year 2013 after much delay and only after becoming wise after such judgments were rendered in cases of other persons such as Komali Gope, Gulab Prasad Dangi (supra) etc as also in the case of Superintendent of Police, Koderma Vrs. Hemraj Prasad Mehta in L.P.A. No. 263 of 2012(supra). It appears that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner except W.P.S. No. 500 of 2013 were preferred much earlier in the year 2008, while the petitioner never approached this court after rejection of her claim in March, 2007 itself. Hemraj Prasad Mehta in L.P.A. No. 263 of 2012(supra). It appears that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner except W.P.S. No. 500 of 2013 were preferred much earlier in the year 2008, while the petitioner never approached this court after rejection of her claim in March, 2007 itself. The claim of the petitioner, therefore has not been staked within a reasonable time and is barred by delay and latches. The opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question of delay and latches as contained in para 54 of the report in the case of State of Orissa & another Vrs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011)3 SCC 436 is being quoted herein below:- “Para 54:-This court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. Relief not claimed-cannot be granted.” 5. Learned Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment delivered on 27.6.2014 in the case of State of Jharkhand Vrs. Sri Anil Kumar Mehta & others reported in 2014(3) JLJR 346 on similar issue of making application for more than 1 district by a candidate for appointment to the post of Constable under Advertisement no. 1/2010 issued by the respondent-State, has while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge upheld the stand of the respondent-State that selection of such candidate, who had applied for more than 1 district is in teeth of the stipulation under the said advertisement. 6. So far as judgment rendered in the case of Shambhu Kumar Ravi in W.P.S.500 of 2003(Supra) is concerned, a perusal of the said judgment indicates that the case of the said petitioner was not rejected like the present petitioner as early as in March, 2007. On the other hand from perusal of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-State in the case of Chandra Shekhar Chaubey (Supra) and Sunil Kumar(Supra), it is evident that this Court on the earlier occasion had not allowed such belated claim of appointment being made under advertisement no. On the other hand from perusal of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-State in the case of Chandra Shekhar Chaubey (Supra) and Sunil Kumar(Supra), it is evident that this Court on the earlier occasion had not allowed such belated claim of appointment being made under advertisement no. 1/04, more so when the entire selection process under the said advertisement stood closed by the conscious decision of the respondent through letter dated 18.8.2010 issued by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand. 7. In these circumstances, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter, which is also barred by delay and latches. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.