Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 409 (JHR)

Md Tausif Jamal Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-02-16

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. – The petitioner has approached this Court with a direction upon the respondents for appointment to the post of Police Constable in Indian Reserve Battalion in pursuance to Advertisement No. 01/2011 dated 15.09.2011. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an advertisement was floated by the respondents for appointment to the post of police constables in Indian Reserve Battalion as Advertisement No. 01/11, which was published in the Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagran dated 15.09.2011. The petitioner having requisite qualification for appointment to the said post, applied for same. Thereafter, upon verification of the same, an admit card was issued for appearing in the examination and roll number was allotted to the petitioner. In view of the said admit card, the petitioner appeared in the physical test as well as written test, in which the petitioner was selected. Thereafter, the results were published in the year, 2013 wherein, the name of the petitioner was appearing in the merit list. When the name of the petitioner appeared in the merit list, the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities wherein, the petitioner was informed that he would be offered letter of appointment, but at his native place i.e. Uttar Pradesh. However, the petitioner did not receive any letter of appointment, left with no option, he has represented before the respondents in the year, 2013 and again in the year, 2016. As the petitioner did not receive any letter of appointment neither any orders on the pending representation, left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of police constable in Indian Reserve Battalion as he has qualified in all the events meant for selection for the post of police constables. 3. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of police constable in Indian Reserve Battalion as he has qualified in all the events meant for selection for the post of police constables. Learned counsel further argues that as per the marks displayed in the master chart and also as per the marks given, the petitioner has passed and qualified in all the events and as such, secured 10 marks but it is only in the counter-affidavit, respondents have come out with a plea that as the petitioner has obtained only 10 marks and last selected candidate has obtained 11 marks and as such, he could not be appointed, is illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents have not considered the marks of the petitioner, awarded for his educational qualification of graduation level, if this one marks is added then the petitioner come comfortably under the zone of consideration and as such, a direction may be given to the respondents for awarding of one more marks to the petitioner as the petitioner is a graduate. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that admittedly, the petitioner has qualified in all the events but merely passing in all the events does not confer him a right for appointment. The appointments are done subject to preparation of merit list and if the petitioner finds place in the merit list as per the vacancy position then, only appointment letter can be offered to him. The petitioner has obtained only 10 marks, which is apparent from the master chart and last selected candidate has obtained 11 marks even if acting on the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no marks has been awarded to the graduation certificate of the petitioner and one more marks is awarded, then also he does not fall within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of police constable as the last selected candidate, who has appointed to the said post, was having the date of birth as 13.06.1988 whereas, the petitioner is a date of birth is 20.07.1988. Learned counsel further submits that in case of tie, rule is clear that anybody senior in age, has to be considered for appointment and as such, no appointment letter could be offered to the petitioner. There is no illegality on the part of the respondents. 5. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or any infirmity has been committed by the respondents and the action of the respondents is fully justified. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained less marks in comparison to the last selected candidate, who has been obtained 11 marks and further the petitioner has approached this Court after 7 long years, the advertisement is of 2011 itself, nothing prevented the petitioner to approach this Court earlier. On the ground of delay and laches also, this case fails. I do not find any merit in this case. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.