Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 106 (ORI)

Jyotiranjan Dash v. D. G. & I. G. of Police

2022-04-20

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

body2022
JUDGMENT : Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard MR. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Standing counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has prayed for the following relief:- “i) To direct the respondent no-3 to allow the applicant to join the post and discharge the duty of constable of 6th IRB Khurdha in pursuance of his selection under annexure- ii) To direct the respondents to grant all financial and consequential benefits to applicant from 7.09.2013 the date when he has reported for joining. iii) And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.” 4. It is submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State Selection Board, Odisha Police under Annexure-1, the Petitioner duly participated in the selection process and on being found suitable, he was issued with the letter of intimation by the Office of O.P. No.3 vide letter No.3220 dtd.03.09.2013 under Annexure-2, indicating his appointment as temporary Constable. 5. It is also submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the order dtd.03.09.2013 under Annexure-2, the Petitioner appeared before Opp. Party No.3 on 07.09.2013 with all his original certificates to undergo the training. It is submitted that on 13.09.2013 while taking physical measurement when it was noticed that the Petitioner possesses less height than the prescribed height for the post of Constable, he was sent back by the said Opp. Party No.3. Accordingly, the Petitioner was deprived from being allowed to continue as against the post of Constable, even though he was issued with the letter of appointment under Annexure-2. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner that after completion of the selection process in every respect, the Petitioner was issued with the letter of appointment under Annexure-2 by making his appointment as a temporary Constable. Therefore, Opp. Party No.3 had no occasion to cause physical measurement of the Petitioner once again and denying the Petitioner to undergo the training on the ground that he does not possess the prescribed height for the post of Constable. In support of aforesaid submission, Mr. Therefore, Opp. Party No.3 had no occasion to cause physical measurement of the Petitioner once again and denying the Petitioner to undergo the training on the ground that he does not possess the prescribed height for the post of Constable. In support of aforesaid submission, Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied on a decision of this Court reported in the case of Sabyasachi Lenka & Ors. v. State of Odisha& Ors. reported in 2019 (I) ILR-CUT-752. 7. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the relevant Recruitment Rules prescribed by the Home Department vide notification dtd.22.03.2011 i.e. Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Sepoys/Constables in Batalions Rules, 2011. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this Court relying on the pari materia provision contained in the Odisha Industrial Security Force (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Constable Rules) 2014, in Para 14 of the aforesaid decision in Sabyasachi Lenka’s case, held as follows:- “In consonance with the rules mentioned above, the State Selection Board, Odisha Police, Cuttack, having determined the number of constables required for the Force, issued advertisement under Annexure-1 to fill up 1370 number of posts of constable by way of direct recruitment by constituting a Selection Board as per Rule-6 taking into eligibility criteria under Rule-7. As per Rule-8, the recruitment centres for constables shall be decided by the Board and the Unit Level Selection Board shall conduct the recruitment test under the direction and supervision of the Board. As per Sub-rule(4) of Rule-11 the Unit Level Selection Board shall start the recruitment process by conducting the physical measurement. Then, the candidates only qualifying the physical measurement shall proceed to the next stage, i.e. physical fitness test and thereafter the Board may decide to further tests, i.e. written test and physical efficiency test. Rule-12 provides that physical measurement for all categories has to be done and rule13 provides written test. As per the decision of the Unit Level Selection Board, in the present case, after physical measurement was done, physical efficiency test, i.e., physical fitness test was conducted as per Rule-15. The petitioners, having been found suitable, were called for written test. Rule-12 provides that physical measurement for all categories has to be done and rule13 provides written test. As per the decision of the Unit Level Selection Board, in the present case, after physical measurement was done, physical efficiency test, i.e., physical fitness test was conducted as per Rule-15. The petitioners, having been found suitable, were called for written test. After completion of recruitment test, the Board drawn up a composite merit list of the successful candidate of all categories and the said merit list was prepared in descending order on the basis of aggregate marks in accordance with the vacancies. The merit list so prepared by the Board was placed before the Director-General and Inspector General of Police for approval and after receiving approval it was called select list. As the petitioners’ name were found place in the select list, they were issued with provisional appointment order and directed to report for training. While undergoing training, the Petitioners were again called for physical measurement test, so far height is concerned, which is not permissible either under the advertisement or under the rules mentioned above. The order impugned indicates that only after conducting physical measurement, so far height is concerned, the Petitioners name have been removed from the second revised select list and eliminated from the appoint et as constables in OISF. As such, there is no provision for drawing any second revised select list nor making second physical measurement, so far as height is concerned, after the select list was finalized either under the Rules, 2014 or in the advertisement under Annexure-1. Therefore, the entire action taken b the authority under Annexures-5, 6 and 7 dated 28.04.2016 in removing the names of the petitioners from the second revised merit list and eliminating from the appointment as constables in OISF cannot sustain in the eye of law ” 8. Mr. Sethi accordingly prayed that in view of the decision of this Court as cited (supra), the action of the Opp. Parties in not allowing the Petitioner to undergo the training after his formal appointment issued under Annexure2 is illegal and needs the interference of this Court. 9. Mr. Balabantaray, learned counsel for the State-Opp. Mr. Sethi accordingly prayed that in view of the decision of this Court as cited (supra), the action of the Opp. Parties in not allowing the Petitioner to undergo the training after his formal appointment issued under Annexure2 is illegal and needs the interference of this Court. 9. Mr. Balabantaray, learned counsel for the State-Opp. Parties while placing his argument in terms of the grounds taken in the counter affidavit, submitted that in view of Clause-4 of Rule 6 of the 2011 Rules, the authorities are empowered to verify the eligibility at any stage of the recruitment process. Accordingly, Mr. Balabantaray, learned counsel for the State-Opp. Parties submitted that in view of the said stipulation, Opp. Party No.3 while reassessing the measurement of the Petitioner found that the Petitioner does not possess the required height and accordingly he was sent back from the training. 10. Mr. Balabantaray also submitted that in view of such stipulation in Rule 6(4) of the Rules, no illegality has been committed by the Opp. Party No.3 in sending back the Petitioner from his training. It is also submitted that since the Petitioner does not possess the prescribed height, he is not eligible for such appointment. 11. This Court on going through the provisions contained under Rule 6(4) of the 2011 Rules found that the eligibility of the candidate can be verified at any stage of the recruitment process. In the instant case the Petitioner after coming out successful in the recruitment process was issued with the letter of appointment vide letter dtd.03.09.2013 under Annexure-2. 12. Therefore, relying on the decision of this court as reported in the case of Sabyasachi Lenka and in view of the admitted position that after completion of the recruitment process, the Petitioner was issued with the letter of appointment under Annexure-2, the action of the Opp. Party No. 3 in not allowing the Petitioner to undergo the training on the ground that he does not possess the prescribed height is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this Court held the action of the Opp. Party No.3 in not allowing the Petitioner to undergo the training and sending him back on 13.09.2013 is not permissible. Accordingly, while interfering with the same, this Court directs the Opp. Accordingly, this Court held the action of the Opp. Party No.3 in not allowing the Petitioner to undergo the training and sending him back on 13.09.2013 is not permissible. Accordingly, while interfering with the same, this Court directs the Opp. Parties to allow the Petitioner to undergo the said training forthwith and after completion of the same in all respect, the Petitioner be allowed to continue as Constable in 6th India Reserve Battalion, Khurda. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.