Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1157 (JHR)

Binay Ojha v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-18

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Kumari Reshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Chandra Prabha, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to the respondents particularly, respondents no. 3 to 5 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner and allow him to join on the post of Constable in the district of Ranchi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement being advertisement no. 3/2007 was published for appointment of Constable in the district of Ranchi. Pursuant to that, the petitioner applied in duly prescribed proforma. He was allotted roll number, being Roll No. 42291, for which a due receipt was given to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates have to appear in the physical tests which was to be held at Police line. The petitioner appeared in the physical tests at police line, Ranchi and he cleared all the events viz running, high jump, long jump and the physical measurement of his person. Pursuant thereto the petitioner appeared in the written test which was held on the same day. It is further stated that when the result was published by the respondents, his name figured at serial no. 5, which is evident from the result published in the Daily Hindustan, Ranchi Edition in the Month of September, 2009. In compliance of instruction petitioner reported in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi for verification of his certificate. The petitioner along with other candidates reported at the police line, Ranchi along with Educational certificate. The petitioner was asked to deposit the educational certificate and in compliance, he deposited all the certificates of educational qualification to the Police Officer authorized to receive the same. It is stated that the petitioner had reported to the Police Line on 20.9.2009 and all the educational certificates of the petitioner was received by the competent authority on 20.9.2009. It is stated that despite lapse of more than a year, the appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner for the reasons best known to the respondents .Thereafter the petitioner filed representation dated 30.3.2011 before the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to issue appointment letter and allow him to join on the post of Constable in the district of Ranchi, but the nothing has been done. 3 to 5 to issue appointment letter and allow him to join on the post of Constable in the district of Ranchi, but the nothing has been done. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion to the authorities to reassess the height of the petitioner as there is no allegation of height against the petitioner. On making query by the court, the learned counsel for the State has tried to point out what is the basis to decide the seniority of the petitioner's last candidate. He failed to point out any rule and regulation etc in this regard. There is no doubt that the petitioner has been selected on the basis of the point and he faced the examination. There is no occasion to the authorities to re-assess his height as there is no allegation of any fraud etc so far as height is concerned. 4. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the appointment letter has not been issued in favour of the petitioner because the petitioner got 19 point and his date of birth is 16.6.1984.The last selected candidate in the petitioner category is 19 points and date of birth is 16.6.1981. In this way the petitioner is junior to the last selected candidate according to date of birth the claim for appointment of the petitioner's does not arise. He submits that taking into account of the date of birth the last candidates, the petitioner was found junior to the last candidate that is why appointment letter has not been issued. He further submits that height was wrongly measured as 182.2.The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out the criteria of deciding the seniority. 5. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the State, the matter is remitted back to the concerned authority who will pass a reasoned order stating rule and regulation in the case of tie of two candidates. The petitioner is directed to approach before the authority concerned within four weeks from today and concerned authority will pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and will communicate the petitioner within four weeks thereafter.; 6. With the aforesaid observation this petition is disposed of.