Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 634 (JHR)

Satyendra Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-17

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:- (a) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to quash the paper bearing no. 803 containing the roll number of the petitioner in the column of ‘other defects’ (Aanya Truti) whereby his candidature for the post of constable from Giridih district is rejected. The said paper is wholly illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because the same does not specify the reason as to what was the defect which was found that the candidatures of the petitioner was rejected and his name did not find included in the provisional list of the successful candidates; (b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable from Giridih district because he is a competent candidate and has passed all the physical and written examinations conducted by the respondents; (c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire selection process and appointments as the same is violative of the High Court order reported in 2002 (3) JCR-188 and the notification no. 5776 dated 10.10.2002, whereby reservation in the matter of employment is required to be followed up in the following manner:- Unreserved Category. 27% (On permanent basis) 23% (One ad hoc basis) Reserved Category Scheduled Caste 10% Scheduled Tribes 21% Other Backward Classes 14% Total 50% 3. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government published an advertisement bearing no. 01/2004 dated 13.01.2004 in daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ inviting applications from the competent candidates to fill up the posts of constable in different districts of the State. This petitioner filled up the application from the district of Giridih and was allotted roll no. 7963. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared in written and physical examinations and he succeeded in all examinations. Subsequently, the State Government published a provisional list of 285 successful candidates on 18.02.2009, but the petitioner was surprised and shocked that his name did not appear in the said provisional list. Subsequently, the respondents published one paper bearing no. 803 containing the roll numbers of candidates showing the reasons as to why their candidature was rejected. Subsequently, the State Government published a provisional list of 285 successful candidates on 18.02.2009, but the petitioner was surprised and shocked that his name did not appear in the said provisional list. Subsequently, the respondents published one paper bearing no. 803 containing the roll numbers of candidates showing the reasons as to why their candidature was rejected. He further submits that this paper is vague, inasmuch as, the column of other defects does not specify the reason as to what was the defect which was found that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner wrote representation to the Superintendent of Police, Koderma and sent a copy of the same to the other superior officer. Learned senior counsel further submits that this paper bearing no. 803 (Annexure-4) is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He contended that as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it appears that some malpractice has been committed by the petitioner with respect to his date of birth, which he specifically denies and dispute, inasmuch as, in the chart there is no overwriting rather there is a cutting and there is initial, as such it cannot be said that petitioner has done any mischief of malpractice. He further draws attention of this Court towards his certificates which transpires his date of birth and submits that the cutting was genuine and his date of birth was corrected. He contended that for the ends of justice, the respondent-State should have given notice before canceling the candidature of each and every petitioner. He further relied upon specific averment made in the writ application at para 9 and submits that the petitioner was a perfect candidate to be appointed and as such, the impugned order should be quashed and set aside, wherein this petitioner’s candidature has been rejected. 4. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that apart from the ground of delay and latches, even on merits this writ application should not be entertained. 4. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that apart from the ground of delay and latches, even on merits this writ application should not be entertained. He further submits that though the cutoff mark for appointment as constable in General Home Guard category was 6 points but the petitioner secured 11 points and admittedly the petitioner had secured much more marks than cutoff; but petitioner’s case for appointment was not considered because of the fact that he was found guilty of malpractice in appointment procedure and his roll number was found mentioned in the list of 932 candidates identified by the inquiry officer under the heading “for other defects.” Learned counsel further submits that this Court has scrutinized the process of selection and had ordered not to consider the case of 932 candidates who were found guilty of malpractice for appointment. The roll number of this petitioner was also in the list of beneficiary of malpractice under the heading “for other defects”, hence his case has not been considered for appointment against the post of constable. He further submits that so far as the matter of other defects are concerned; in master chart over writing was found in the column of date of birth of the petitioner. Moreover, as per his own statement made with regard to his date of birth several contradictions are there which prima facie shows that he was beneficiary of malpractice in appointment process and hence as per direction given by this court; his case for appointment has not been considered. In this regard he relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Krishnaji Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2006 4 JLJR 702 wherein at paragraph no. 11-b it has been held as under:- “11…..(b) Respondents are directed to make appointment according to select/merit list of successful candidates declared successful in the four districts of the State namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih against the advertised vacancies excluding 932 candidates identified by the Inquiry Officer and found to be beneficiaries of malpractices during the selection. Let the appointment of such candidates be made within two months….” Relying upon the aforesaid order learned counsel submits that no interference is required in this case. Even otherwise, the merit list has been declared time barred by the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police issued under memo no. Let the appointment of such candidates be made within two months….” Relying upon the aforesaid order learned counsel submits that no interference is required in this case. Even otherwise, the merit list has been declared time barred by the order of Deputy Inspector General of Police issued under memo no. 2026/p dated 18.08.2010, as such now no relief can be granted to this petitioner as of now he is over age. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnaji Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) it is clear that this Court has directed the respondents to issue result of the candidates who have been declared successful and cancel the list of 932 candidates identified by the inquiry officer under the heading of “for other defects.” It also transpires that this Court has scrutinized the entire process of selection and only then directed the respondents not to consider the case of 932 persons who were found guilty of malpractice for appointment. Since the roll number of the petitioner was also there in the list of beneficiary of malpractice under the heading “For other defects”, hence his case has not been considered for appointment against the post of constable. 6. It further transpires that the allegation against this petitioner which has been stated in several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit has not been controverted by any rejoinder affidavit; though this counter-affidavit was filed way back in the year July, 2012. It also appears from record that the said selection process has already been declared time barred by the order of respondent no.-1 way back in the year 2010 vide memo no. 2026/P dated 18.08.2010. It goes without saying that this letter which is annexed as Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit dated 05.04.2018, has also not been challenged by way of any amendment. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Consequently, the instant writ application stands dismissed.