Jharkhand High Court

Satyendra Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2021

                                            1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(S) No. 2434 of 2009
     Satyendra Singh                          ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
     1. The State of Jharkhand, through Director General of
        Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
     2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur
        Division, Hazaribagh.
     3. Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh.
     4. Superintendent of Police, Koderma.
     5. Police Selection Committee, through its Chairman,
        Superintendent of Police, Koderma. .....     Respondents
                                    ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C.(Mines)III

---------

16/Dated: 17th August, 2021 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. 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 cancelling

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. 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 indentified 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. 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