Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 610 (JHR)

Samid Ahmed v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-03-14

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 Jalwahak (Water Carrier) in view of advertisement No. 01/2007. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police (respondent No.5). 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 Water Carrier (Jal Wahak)/ police constables in Jharkhand Armed Police. The petitioner having requisite qualification, applied for the same and admit card was issued to him, having roll No.188. It is the case of the petitioner that though he belongs to OBC category and obtained 64 marks, but his case was not considered for appointment to the post of Jalwahak (Water Carrier) whereas, persons having same marks were considered and appointed to the said post. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation before the respondents, but the same was not considered and as such, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 3. Md. Zafar Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has moved before this Hon''ble Clourt and it was averment made in the counter-affidavit that an order was passed by this Hon''ble Court to consider the case of the petitioner as persons having equal marks to the petitioner and below in age, have been considered but respondents have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner though he fulfills all the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Jalwahak (Water Carrier). Learned counsel further argues that in view of the letter No. 1149 dated 12.03.2009 admittedly, there were two vacancies of OBC category for the post of Jalwahak and as such, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered and a direction may be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph Nos. 6 to 8 of the counter-affidavit. Mr. 4. Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph Nos. 6 to 8 of the counter-affidavit. Mr. Sameer Sahai argues that there was no reservation for the OBC Category for the post of Jalwahak (water carrier) and subsequently, two additional posts of Jalwahak was created (one in JAP-8 and second in JAP-9 and those posts were to be taken into consideration in the future vacancies and not in the present recruitment process arising out of Advertisement No. 01/07, which has already been completed. Learned counsel further argues that in view of impugned order dated 21.08.2017, it is very clear that none of the persons have been appointed to the post of Jalwahak in reserved category of OBC for which the petitioner is claiming appointment, neither Prabodh Kumar Mahto nor the Atul Kumar have been appointed in the reserved category of OBC. The vacancies which came subsequently, have been created for future vacancies and not be taken in the aforesaid advertisement. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for appointment to the post of Water Carrier (Jalwahak). From perusal of the impugned order dated 21.08.2017, it is crystal clear that none of the persons, as claimed by the petitioner, have been appointed to the post of Jalwahak under the reserved category of OBC. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the writ petition. There is no merit in this case. 6. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.