Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2566 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-11-27

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2018
ORDER : 1. The writ petition is for quashing the decision, taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, as contained in Memo No.379, dated 27.1.2013 (Annexure-3), whereby and whereunder, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a constable, has been rejected on the ground that he could not be able to pass the annual examination, as per the condition stipulated in paragraph 5 of the Police Order No. 209/1988 dated 11th August, 1988 (Annexure-A) annexed to the counter-affidavit. 2. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while arguing the matter and while assailing the impugned order, has submited that the petitioner was appointed as 'Bal Police' after death of his father in harness when he has less than 18 years of age and as per the provision of scheme, he has been provided the aforesaid appointment to look after the dependent of bereaved family. The petitioner after attaining the age of 18 years, has been decided to be ceased to work as 'Bal Police', but the grievance of the petitioner is that he could have been appointed as constable, in the form of spirit of appointment on compassionate ground, but his case is rejected for the reason that he has failed in getting the 8th Class examination pass and the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, by taking aid of the provision of Clause 5 of the memo dated 11th August 1988, annexed to the counter-affidavit as Annexure-A, has rejected the same. The submission of Mr. Sahani learned counsel for the petitioner that the para 5 of the aforesaid resolution will not be applicable, as it is not the case of the petitioner of failing in the annual examination as stipulated in Clause 5 of the aforesaid memo, rather it is case of discontinuation in getting the 8th class pass, which is evident from the report dated 21.1.2012, Annexure-2, annexed to the writ petition wherein it has been stated that due to some unavoidable circumstance i.e. due to illness of his mother, after the death of his father and due to financial crunch, he could not be able to continue his study i.e. from the period 29.7.2008 to 4.4.2010, but, thereafter, he has passed 8th and 9th examination and, as such, it is the case of discontinuation of study and not the case of unsuccessful in the 8th examination as stipulated in Clause 5 of the aforesaid memo. Accordingly, the authority, while rejecting the claim has not applied its mind properly. His submission is that Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, while submitting a report to the Additional Director of Police. Headquarters, has given the reason of discontinuity in study, but it seems that the other Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, by virtue of transfer of earlier one has passed the order, without taking care of the report submitted by the then Superintendent of Police, Bokaro dated 11.8.2012, as such, the decision taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro dated 21.1.2013 is not sustainable and without taking into consideration of the enquiry report. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the state-respondent has vehemently argued relying upon the counter-affidavit and has submitted that the claim of the petitioner for appointment as a constable has been rejected since he has proceeded in view of the provisions of para 5 of the Police Order No. 209/1988 dated 11th August, 1988 (Annexure A), annexed to the counter-affidavit. However, learned counsel for the State-respondent very fairly submitted that it is not a case of failure in any of the examination. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their arguments, it is an admitted position that late Ashok Kumar Singh, the father of the petitioner, was died in harness, while working as Havildar in the district police and, thereafter, in pursuance to the provision of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner, who at the time of death of his father, has been appointed as 'Bal Police'. The petitioner at the time of engagement as 'Bal Police' was studying in class-VIII. The petitioner, on attaining the age of 18 years, has been ceased to be a 'Bal Police', as per the provision, he was to be engaged as a constable. The petitioner at the time of engagement as 'Bal Police' was studying in class-VIII. The petitioner, on attaining the age of 18 years, has been ceased to be a 'Bal Police', as per the provision, he was to be engaged as a constable. The petitioner has duly represented before the authority with respect to the aforesaid claim, but some dispute has arisen regarding the class of the petitioner, as to whether he has been able to get the 8th class pass or failed at any annual examination and when an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, who has submitted its report on 21.11.2012, wherein it has been found by him that the petitioner has got his 9th class pass, but there was discontinuation in his study from 29.7.2008 to 4.4.2010, as he could not be able to study and, thereafter, he got the 9th class pass from K.D. International School, Gangapur, Giridih. The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro, has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed in the annual examination and as such the provision made in the Police Order No. 209/1988 dated 11th August, 1988 is coming in his way, hence, his claim has been rejected, which is the order impugned in this writ petition. 5. This Court has gone through the Police Order No. 209/1988 dated 11th August, 1988 (Annexure-A) annexed to the counter-affidavit, wherein the provision has been made that the dependent children, who would be unsuccessful in annual examination, whose services would be cancelled, meaning thereby, the aforesaid clause speaks regarding the cancellation of service of such appointees / children, who have been declared to be unsuccessful in any of the annual examination. This Court, therefore, is examining the actual aspect as to whether the petitioner has failed in any of the annual examination, so that para 5 of the Police Order No. 209/1988 dated 11th August, 1988 will be applicable, as has been taken in the impugned order dated 27.1.2013. This Court, therefore, is examining the actual aspect as to whether the petitioner has failed in any of the annual examination, so that para 5 of the Police Order No. 209/1988 dated 11th August, 1988 will be applicable, as has been taken in the impugned order dated 27.1.2013. It is evident from the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro dated 21.11.2012, who has conducted the through enquiry even by calling upon the record of concerned school and by making oral enquiry from the incumbent of the concerned school, has reported therein that there is no discontinuity in his study from 29.7.2008 to 4.4.2010, but the successor Superintendent of Police, Bokaro has not taken care of the enquiry report, submitted by the earlier Superintendent of Police, Bokaro. 6. In view of the above, the decision taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro on 21.11.2012, has not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the factual aspect has not been taken into consideration and applicability of the condition as stipulated in paragraph 5 has wrongly been held in the case of the petitioner since there are two divergent views of the Superintendents of Police, Bokaro, one of the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro functioning as on 21.11.2012 has reported that there is discontinuity in his study from 29.7.2008 to 4.4.2010, but the another Superintendent of Police, Bokaro on 27.1.2013 has found that it is case of unsuccessful in the annual examination, in view of this factual aspects, the authority while passing the order ought to have taken into consideration the enquiry report dated 21.11.2012 by not doing so is not proper on the part of the said authority, hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, quashed and being remitted before the Director General of Police Jharkhand, Ranchi, who will take a fresh decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction as above. Petition disposed of.