Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 560 (JHR)

P. Dhananjay v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-05

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The appellant-writ petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the decision dated 22.05.2007 before the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 3854 of 2007 and, aggrieved thereof, he has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to advertisement no. 01/04 issued on 15.02.2004, the appellant-writ petitioner submitted his application for the post of Constable from Koderma district and he was finally selected for the said post. Upon some complaints received regarding irregularity and malpractice in the selection of the candidates pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, an enquiry was conducted by the respondents in which 932 candidates were found beneficiaries of the malpractices committed during the selection process. Consequently, the entire selection in four districts namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih was cancelled by the respondents, challenging the same batch of writ petitions were filed in this Court. Vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2006 in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 and analogous cases titled “Krishnaji and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others”, this Court quashed the decision of mass cancellation of entire selection pursuant to advertisement no.01/04. In the proceeding of the said writ petitions, the report of the Inspector General of Police was produced before the Court and considering the fact that 932 candidates were identified as beneficiaries of malpractice during selection, this Court permitted the respondents to proceed with the selection of other candidates excluding, those 932 identified candidates. Thereafter, a list of candidates was published on 17.02.2007 in which the appellant's name appeared at Sl. No.43 however, his result was kept pending. In response to the appellant's representation dated 03.04.2007, the Superintendent of Police, Koderma-respondent no.4 informed him vide, letter dated 22.05.2007 that his selection has been cancelled. The appellant-writ petitioner, aggrieved thereof, approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3854 of 2007 which, now stands dismissed. 3. Heard. 4. Dr. S.N. Pathak, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that after the decision of this Court in “Krishnaji and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others” reported in 2006 (4) JLJR 702 , any further plea of illegal appointment except, against 932 candidates who were identified by the respondents themselves as beneficiaries of malpractice during the selection, is barred by “issue estoppel”. State of Jharkhand and others” reported in 2006 (4) JLJR 702 , any further plea of illegal appointment except, against 932 candidates who were identified by the respondents themselves as beneficiaries of malpractice during the selection, is barred by “issue estoppel”. It is contended that the decision of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1242 of 2006 and analogous cases was never challenged by the respondents and thus, the same has become final and binding upon the respondents. 5. Per contra, Mr. D.K. Dubey, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand disputing the plea of “issue estoppel” submits that the decision of this Court in Krishnaji's case does not govern other cases in which enquiry was pending or on subsequent enquiry further illegality has surfaced. It is submitted that this Court in the Krishnaji's case did not curtail the power of the State to conduct enquiry in individual cases. 6. At the outset, we notice that the decision of this Court in Krishnaji's case was primarily rendered on the premise that the candidates who had successfully qualified without being the beneficiaries of misconduct or malpractice during the selection must not suffer. It is not in dispute that when order dated 10.11.2006 was passed by this Court in Krishnaji's case, the enquiry report which was placed before the Court identified only 932 candidates who were said to be beneficiaries of malpractices during the selection however, it has also come on record that several other cases in which appointment was secured by interpolation in the record of the physical test and the merit list were detected or established subsequently. The appellant himself has admitted that after the decision of this Court in Krishnaji's case in the list which was published on 17.02.2007, his result was kept pending. Letter dated 22.05.2007 intimating the appellant that the Selection Board has taken a decision to cancel his candidature indicates that the appellant's name was pasted over the name of another candidate. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed before the Writ Court, the respondents have disclosed that the name of the appellant was introduced in the selection list by pasting a separate paper over the name of one Sanjay Kisku. The Selection Board while scrutinising the case of the appellant found that the appellant is also a beneficiary of the malpractice committed during the selection. The Selection Board while scrutinising the case of the appellant found that the appellant is also a beneficiary of the malpractice committed during the selection. The respondents have further taken a stand that at the time when 932 candidates were identified as beneficiaries, result of 112 candidates was kept pending and the appellant was one amongst those 112 candidates. Subsequently, in the light of direction issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range on 26.03.2007, the Selection Board examined the record of other candidates. The learned Single Judge noticing that inclusion of the name in the merit list does not give an indefeasible right for appointment and on the question of appointment secured through fraud referred to decision in “Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.” reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 and finally held that though the manipulation/interpolation was detected at the later stage, the writ petitioner does not get any benefit. 8. In so far as, decision in Krishnaji's case (supra) is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that the said decision was rendered in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In Krishnaji’s case, this Court interfered with the order of mass cancellation of appointments primarily on the ground that the Inspector General of Police, who conducted an inquiry had identified 932 candidates as beneficiaries of malpractices in selection. In the said case, this Court did not restrict any further inquiry in the matter. The import of the decision in Krishnaji's case is that 932 candidates who were identified as beneficiaries cannot be selected. It is well-settled that a judicial decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what can be read into it. In “Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujrat” (1987) 1 SCC 213 , it has been held that a decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “18. ….The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it ….....” 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “18. ….The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it ….....” 9. Admittedly, the appellant-writ petitioner was not finally appointed on the post of Constable rather, his case alongwith other candidates was kept pending and, on further scrutiny when it was found that the appellant was also beneficiary of malpractice during the selection, the Selection Board cancelled his candidature. 10. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.05.2007 passed by the Writ Court, we decline to interfere in the matter and resultantly, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.