Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 422 (JHR)

Hansawati Kumari v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-02-19

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S. N. Pathak, J. – The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for appointment to the post of Police Constable in pursuance to Advertisement No. 04/2015 as they have qualified in all the events. 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 vide Advertisement No. 04/2015, which was published through JSSC, wherein a total of 165 vacancies were earmarked for the District of Gumla. 3. The petitioners having requisite qualification for appointment to the said post, applied for same. Thereafter, upon verification of the same, admit card was issued for appearing in the examination and roll number was allotted to the petitioners. In view of the said admit card, the petitioners appeared in the preliminary test, mains, physical test as well as medical test, in which the petitioners were declared successful. It is specific case of the petitioners that though their case falls within unreserved female category and still vacancies are there, the petitioners though found to be successful in all the events, have not been offered letter of appointment. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioners made representations before the respondents, but the same was not considered and no order were passed. 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 their grievances. 4. Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for appointment to the post of police constables as they have qualified in all the events meant for selection for the post of police constables and in view of the fact that vacancies are still available in unreserved female category. Learned counsel further submits that a direction may be given to the respondents for considering the case of the petitioners and to offer appointment letters. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal and Mr. Learned counsel further submits that a direction may be given to the respondents for considering the case of the petitioners and to offer appointment letters. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal and Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that admittedly, there were 28 vacancies for unreserved female category (including Home Guard categories) and the names of the 28 candidates have already been recommended and as such, there is no vacancies. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioners have qualified in all the events but merely passing in all the events does not confer them a right for appointment. The appointments are done subject to preparation of merit list and if the petitioners find place in the merit list as per the vacancy position then, only appointment letter can be offered to them and as such, no appointment letter could be offered to the petitioners. There is no illegality on the part of the respondents. 6. 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. Merely because the petitioners were declared successful in all the events and if even their names were recommended, no right accrues to them for appointment to the post of police constable. From the counter-affidavit and argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, it transpires that all the vacancies have been filled up and no vacancies are left in unreserved female category. 7. In view of the admitted fact that no vacancies are available, writ of mandamus can not be issued for appointment to the post of police constables. I do not find any infirmity in not considering the case of the petitioners. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.