Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1212 (JHR)

Arjun Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-20

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for appointment on the post of Police Driver as he comes within the zone of consideration. Factual Matrix 2. An advertisement was made by the respondents as Advertisement No.-01/2010 for appointment of police driver. The petitioner having requisite qualification applied for the same and was issued admit card having Roll No.38 (J.A.P.T.C.-Padma). 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he qualified in all the tests, physical, written as well as driving tests and declared successful and his roll number appeared in the Display Board as successful candidate. The result of the advertisement No.01/2010 was published but unfortunately the roll number of the petitioner did not find place in the said list of successful candidate and hence this writ petition has been preferred for a direction to appoint the petitioner on the post of police driver as he was successful in the physical as well as written test and as such in view of that he should have been issued appointment letter. 4. Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that as the petitioner was declared successful in all the events he ought to have been issued appointment letter but the respondent-authorities have not issued appointment letter to the petitioner and the acts of respondents are illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with the rules, guidelines and the provisions of the police manual. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 6. Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, J.C. to S.C.IV vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rai draws the attention of the Court towards several paragraph of the counter-affidavit, particularly, paragraph No.10 and submits that the candidates belonging to general category non-Home guards, who had obtained 44 to 49 marks in the Test Examination were found qualified candidates for appointment to the post of Police Driver and only 90 candidates of this category secured 44 marks and above. 7. It has been further argued that total 1706 candidates were found qualified candidates as they had obtained above 20 marks in the Test Examination. The present writ petitioner had obtained 39 marks in the Test Examination and he was not found qualified for appointment to the post of police driver. 7. It has been further argued that total 1706 candidates were found qualified candidates as they had obtained above 20 marks in the Test Examination. The present writ petitioner had obtained 39 marks in the Test Examination and he was not found qualified for appointment to the post of police driver. The writ petitioner was candidate of General Category and he was not the candidate of Home guard and he had obtained only 39 marks in Test Examination and hence he became disqualified for appointment to the post of Police Driver. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that a merit list is prepared and cut-off marks is fixed in the instant case. Cut-off marks 44 has been fixed. The petitioner has obtained only 39 marks. There is no illegality or infirmity in the rejection order. The petitioner has rightly not been appointed. The advertisement relates to advertisement No.1/2010. Number of advertisement has been floated after 2010 and many appointments have been made on the post of police driver. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the writ application. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.