Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1919 (JHR)

Preetpal Kour v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-10

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is directed to make suitable correction regarding correction of designation of Respondent No. 5 in the cause-title in course of the day. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Constable in Jharkhand Police pursuant to the Advertisement No. 04/2015 (Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination-2015. Factual Matrix:- There was an advertisement floated by the State Government as Advertisement No. 04/2015 for appointment to the post of Constable through the Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination-2015, wherein online application were invited to fill-up the form. The petitioner having fulfilled the required eligibility criteria, applied for the same in Economic Backward Class-I (EBC-I) category and after the application being duly entertained by the Department, roll No. 11191210237 was duly allotted to him against the District of Ramgarh. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in preliminary examination, which was conducted on 30.01.2016 and duly qualified in the preliminary examination. Thereafter, he was called for and appeared in the Mains examination, having roll No. 228090164, and qualified in the said examination also. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was called for and appeared in the physical and medical test conducted on 27.11.2016 at Hazaribagh, wherein the petitioner passed the physical and medical test. On 04.01.2017; resultantly, he was called for verification of certificates. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that some of the aggrieved candidates of this examination had preferred W.P.(S) No. 3239 of 2017, claiming that they have passed all the examinations but appointments were not made. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 11.08.2017 directed the respondents to prepare fresh merit list of each category and also directed to the State to issue the fresh appointment letter to the candidates. Pursuant thereto, on 15.09.2017, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission published the fresh merit list /cut of marks of each category on the website. It is very much clear from the result published that the petitioner obtained total of 176 marks in his category i.e. EBC-I, whereas the cut off marks of EBC-I category for the District of Ramgarh is 167 only. Aggrieved by this discriminatory attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. It is very much clear from the result published that the petitioner obtained total of 176 marks in his category i.e. EBC-I, whereas the cut off marks of EBC-I category for the District of Ramgarh is 167 only. Aggrieved by this discriminatory attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not appointed the petitioner to the post of constable though he fulfilled the requisite qualification and was also declared successful in all the events including medical examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had obtained 176 marks in the category of EBC-I though the persons having lesser marks, have been appointed, which is apparent from results uploaded on the website but the petitioner has been discriminated. Learned counsel further argues that in the verification procedures, the petitioner submitted all the required/necessary documents, which were asked by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and as such, there was no occasion for not appointing the petitioner on the post of constable. 5. Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that he is not in a position to justify the stand of the respondents as to why the petitioner was not appointed even he had obtained 176 marks, which is much more higher than the last selected candidate, who had obtained 167 marks only. 6. Mr. Tejo Mistry, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the JSSC submits that since the certificates of the petitioner were not verified as he did not produce the same and the petitioner has rightly not been appointed for the said post. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the JSSC that the petitioner did not produce the required caste certificate issued by the SDO of the District Ramgarh and as such on that score, he was not appointed. As the caste certificate was not issued by the competent authority i.e. SDO, the case of the petitioner was not considered though the petitioner fulfills all other requisite qualification as meant for appointment of constables. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. From perusal of the documents on record it is very much clear that the petitioner has duly qualified and has been declared successful in all the events including medical examination. The petitioner has also appeared in verification of the certificates, which were required necessary for appointment on the post of constables. It can be comfortably said that the petitioner was having requisite qualification and fulfilled all the criteria and as such, there was no occasion for not appointing the petitioner to the post of constable as he has obtained 176 marks in category of EBC-I in the District Ramgarh. The caste certificate was issued to the petitioner in the year 2011 itself by the Competent Authority i.e. SDO and the same was not disputed by the respondents at the time of verification of certificates. It is the only contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that as per Clause 8 (iii) of the advertisement, the candidates were required to produce the caste certificate issued after 31.03.2015 by a competent authority i.e. the SDO but the petitioner has produced the caste certificate issued by the CO and not by the SDO. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has obtained 176 marks whereas the cut off marks is 167 in EBC-I category for the District of Ramgarh. The caste certificates are always issued by the Circle Officer on the basis of the report of Halka Karmchari and thereafter, the certificates are approved by the SDO. In the instant case, the caste certificate had duly been issued by the C.O. though the petitioner failed to get it approved by the SDO, within the stipulated time. It is not the case that the petitioner does not belongs to EBC-I category or he has not submitted the certificate on time for verification, but he has submitted the certificate issued by an Authority lower in rank than required. It is not the case that the petitioner does not belongs to EBC-I category or he has not submitted the certificate on time for verification, but he has submitted the certificate issued by an Authority lower in rank than required. Further, admittedly the petitioner is in possession of caste certificate issued in the year 2011 by the SDO and the petitioner has submitted the certificate issued after 31.03.2015 by the C.O. I, therefore, of the opinion that rejection of candidature of the petitioner on hyper technical ground is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and legal proposition, I hereby direct the respondent No. 5 Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to recommend the name of the petitioner, taking a sympathetic view that he has qualified in all the events and obtained much more marks than the last selected candidate. After receipt of the recommendation of the respondent No. 5, the respondent No. 4 is directed to take suitable steps for offering the appointment letter to the petitioner. It is also directed that the petitioner will appear along with all required certificates including caste certificate, issued by the Competent Authority before the respondents and after verification, if it is found that the petitioner fulfills the requisite criteria, his case shall be considered for appointment by the respondents in accordance with law. The entire exercise will be completed, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.