Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1519 (JHR)

Seva Saw v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-25

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for appointment on the post of Police constable in Hazaribag district against advertisement no. 01/2004. Factual Matrix: 2. In view of the advertisement no. 01/2004 the petitioner applied for the post of constable having requisite qualifications. After being declared successful in all the events the petitioner came to know that he has obtained 11 marks, the petitioner also belongs to the reserved category of Home Guard. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner like 6 marks were appointed on the reserved category of Home Guard. Petitioner though obtained 11 marks, have been denied the appointment. It is specific case of the petitioner that though the case of petitioner was recommended vide Annexure7 on 16.7.2010 with a specific direction to the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh who was then the Chairman of Police Selection Committee, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh but till date no reply has been given on the said recommendation/query of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur Range, Hazaribag. Petitioner also represented before the respondent-authorities for consideration of his case on the ground that he has obtained 11 marks and persons having 6 marks were appointed on the same post, but no orders have been passed on the representation of the petitioner and hence this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that duty of making entries in Master Roll is that of Sergeant Major, who is an officer under the respondents and not of the petitioner and because of laches/lapses on the part of Sergeant Major, petitioner could not have been penalized. It is further stated that 50 per cent reservation was stipulated to the candidates, who possesses Home Guard's Training Certificate even then such reservation has not been given to the petitioner and grievances has not been redressed and as such the action of the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law. Candidates having less marks than the petitioner have been appointed whereas petitioner has been denied. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed in the year 2011 itself. Mr. Candidates having less marks than the petitioner have been appointed whereas petitioner has been denied. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed in the year 2011 itself. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner, and draws the attention of the court towards paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit and argues that petitioner though has obtained 11 marks but has not qualified in the events of high jump and long jump. It was the specific requirement as per the advertisement that candidates have to qualify in all the events i.e. physical, written as well as medical test. The petitioner though have obtained 11 marks but has failed to qualify in the events of high jump and long jump and as such petitioner cannot be appointed. The learned counsel further draws the attention of the court towards Annexure A of the counter-affidavit and submits that in view of the policy decision of the State Government all the appointments arisen out of advertisement no. 01/2004 have been closed vide letter dated 18.8.2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Ranchi and as such no appointments can be given to the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ application in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents and in view of the admitted fact that appointments arisen out of advertisement no. 01/2004 has already been closed. No interference is required in the writ application and no appointment letter can be offered to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has been declared unsuccessful in the events of high jump and long jump, he cannot be said to be a successful candidate and as such the petitioner was disqualified and not appointed. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Further, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment reported in 2008 (4), JLJR, page 605 and submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered under the said judgment and as such appointment should be offered to him. I have gone through the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner which is of no help to him. 6. Further, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment reported in 2008 (4), JLJR, page 605 and submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered under the said judgment and as such appointment should be offered to him. I have gone through the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner which is of no help to him. The facts of the case are different and in a situation where a policy decision has been taken by the State in 2010 itself for closing all the appointments arising out of Advertisement No. 01/2004, no consideration can be given to the petitioner. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, rules, guidelines, observations and judicial pronouncements, I find no merit in the writ application. Resultantly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.