Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2578 (JHR)

Balmukund Mehta v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-11-27

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Driver Police, in pursuance to Advertisement No.01 of 2010 since he has been declared pass in all the tests (written as well as physical). Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to reserve one post of the Driver Police. 2. The Brief facts of the case is that in pursuance to Advertisement No.01 of 2010, the petitioner applied for the post of Driver Police. The petitioner was declared pass in all the tests (written and physical) and secured 43 points. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner was in the hope of getting appointment in the post in question since he belongs to OBC category. Due to non-selection/appointment, the petitioner submitted representation vide Annexure-3 which did not yield any result. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post in question, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power being in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner belonging to OBC category is entitled to the benefit under the respective rules, regulations and circulars. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that the last person to be appointed under Category of OBC-II, of which the petitioner also belongs, secured total mark of 43 and his date of birth is 10.01.1983. While the petitioner belonging to the same category (OBC-II) also secured same marks but his date of birth is 17.02.1984. Hence the last person appointed in his category even secured the same marks to that of petitioner, was senior in age to him and as such within the limit of vacancy and as per rule, the petitioner could not be appointed, which is evident from the Master Chart annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 5. Hence the last person appointed in his category even secured the same marks to that of petitioner, was senior in age to him and as such within the limit of vacancy and as per rule, the petitioner could not be appointed, which is evident from the Master Chart annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has assiduously submitted that there is absolutely no infirmity in the decision of the respondents in selecting the candidate on the basis of date of birth since the person selected was older in age. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in selecting the candidates under OBC-II category. Admittedly, the petitioner secured the same marks as the last candidate but the last candidate selected was older in age, therefore, the said candidate has been preferred as per the rule and circular and the averments made in the counter affidavit has not been controverted by filing of the rejoinder. Therefore, in view of the categorical submission made in the counter affidavit, no interference in the writ application is called for. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.