Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 697 (JHR)

Laxman Sah v. State of Jharkhand

2018-03-28

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
ORDER : In the instant writ application, the petitioner calls in question the decision of the respondent No. 7 vide Memo dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure-9) for non-selection of the petitioner to the post of the Police Constable and further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable forthwith in pursuance to the selection. 2. The brief facts, as has been depicted in the writ application are that in pursuance to the Advertisement published in the year 2004, bearing Advertisement No. 01/2004, the petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable and the petitioner was declared as successful candidate under the category of Home Guard from Sahebganj district and his Roll No. has figured at Serial No. 52 of the select list vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. Though the name of the petitioner has figured in the select list but inadvertently, the name of the petitioner was shown as Matric pass candidate but the petitioner is a non-matric and due to such mistake, the petitioner could not be appointed. Being aggrieved by the non-appointment, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.5 by filing application, ventilating his grievances. On receipt of such grievance petition, the respondent No. 5 directed the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh-cum-President of the Selection Committee Board vide Memo dated 1.5.2008 to appoint the petitioner on the post of the Police Constable, as evident from Annexure-5 of the writ petition. In pursuance to the direction of respondent No.5, a Call letter was issued upon the petitioner vide Memo dated 13.8.2008 under the signature of the respondent No. 7 and thereafter, the petitioner appeared on 27.9.2008 and filed an application for appointment before the respondent No. 7. Due to discrepancy in the address in the application form and subsequent production of residential certificate, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply explaining the reasons for giving two addresses but to the utter surprise, the respondent No. 7 took an unilateral decision not to appoint the petitioner on the post of the Police Constable vide Memo dated 28.4.2009 vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondent No.7, the petitioner left with no alternative has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that non-appointment of the petitioner on the post of the Police Constable in spite of due selection amounts to illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner after due selection, amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been submitted that the application of the petitioner and the record of his candidature was examined by the authorities. The Caste Certificate and the Residential Certificate were showing his residence as Village-Chajora, P.S.-Thakur Ghanti, District-Godda, which was different from his permanent address and postal address given by the petitioner in the application. Moreover, the certificate shows that the petitioner belongs to the backward Class and Home Guard Category. The Certificate showing that he was Home Guard Trained was not signed by the issuing authority, rather, it was signed by an Inspector. This fact was examined by the then Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh and in reply to that, the Commandant. Central Training Institute, Jharkhand Home Guard, Dhurwa, Ranchi in his Memo dated 3.11.2008 intimated to the then Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh, whereby he accented that the petitioner had taken basic training from the aforesaid Home Guard Training Institute. After considering the Caste Certificate, Residential Certificate and the Permanent and the postal address mentioned in the application of the petitioner, the then Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh in view of the prima facie difference in both of them, cancelled the candidature of the petitioner, passing the Memo dated 28.4.2009 vide Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, which is also impugned in the writ application. 5. 5. A supplementary counter-affidavit dated 3.1.2018, has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.7, wherein, it has been submitted that the selection process has been declared time barred by the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand vide Memo dated 18.8.2010, directing therein, that no selection will be made from the merit list prepared against the Advertisement No. 01/2004, as because, it is tame-barred as per Annexure-A to the said affidavit. It has further been submitted that normal selection process against the Advertisement No. 61/2004 was over in the year 2007 itself. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit, has submitted that the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner to the post of the Constable cannot be construed to be illegal in view of the fact that there was discrepancy in the address given in the application form and the address given in the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of selection had a number of marked relevant dissimilarities, because of which his candidature was cancelled. 7. Having given my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned decision, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition due to the following facts and reasons :- (1) Though the petitioner was a selected candidate for the post of Constable pertaining to Advertisement No. 01/2004, but because of certain discrepancies/dis-similarities in the address of the petitioner, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled and the decision was taken not to give appointment to the petitioner on the post in question. Moreover, the selection to the aforesaid post was over in the year 2007 itself and in the meanwhile, from the year of advertisement, more than 13 years have elapsed and in the meantime, the decision has been taken in the year 2010 as per Annexure-A to the supplementary counter-affidavit that no further selection can be made from the merit list, since it is already time-barred. (ii) It is no more res integra that inclusion of the name in the select list does not give any indefeasible right for appointment. (ii) It is no more res integra that inclusion of the name in the select list does not give any indefeasible right for appointment. In the case in hand, since, because of the follies of the petitioner, his candidature for selection to the post of the Constable was cancelled, the petitioner is not entitled to be shown any mercy or leniency in case of public employment, if he is found to be involved in committing mistakes in furnishing correct address. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order vide Memo dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent No.7. Resultantly, the writ petition, is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.