Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 842 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-16

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. I.A. No. 5441 of 2015 For the reasons carved out in the application and there being no serious objection from the opposite side, delay in filing the accompanied appeal, is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 5441 of 2015 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 560 of 2015 Aggrieved of order dated 05.08.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 1957 of 2009 whereby, the prayer seeking a direction upon the respondents to appoint the appellant writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as “petitioner”) was declined by the Writ Court, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. Dr. S.N. Pathak, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner referring to letters written by the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police (Training) submits that the petitioner was found eligible still, he was not appointed on the post of Constable. It is contended that in view of miniscule difference in the height of the petitioner, the respondents should have exercised powers under Rule 663(c) of the Police Manual which they erroneously refused to exercise and thus, denied the petitioner appointment on the post of Constable. 4. The learned State counsel raised a question of maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that way back in the year, 2010 by the order of the Director General of Police appointment pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 was stopped. It is submitted that, may be, by the orders of the Court few persons were appointed however, in the facts of the case, the petitioner cannot claim parity with other persons. 5. At the outset, we notice that the present is not a case in which powers under Rule 663(c) of the Police Manual would have been exercised by the respondents. Such power can be exercised in the public interest and not to grant benefit to one or two individuals. The difference in height of the petitioner, may be miniscule, has reduced the total marks of the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner secured 14 marks and he could not get appointment because, on the basis of date of birth he was placed at serial no. 15 in the merit list below the last selected candidate in his category. The difference in height of the petitioner, may be miniscule, has reduced the total marks of the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner secured 14 marks and he could not get appointment because, on the basis of date of birth he was placed at serial no. 15 in the merit list below the last selected candidate in his category. The letters written by the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector General of Police (Training) only indicate that the petitioner has qualified and the said fact is also reflected in the merit list wherein, the petitioner's name find place. The letters written by the aforesaid officers are not the orders of appointment of the petitioner. Moreover, the selection process pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year, 2004 cannot continue for an indefinite period. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, the appointment pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 has already been stopped. 6. Viewed thus, we find no merit in the instant Letters Patent Appeal which warrants dismissal. Ordered accordingly.