Jharkhand High Court
Ruplal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1441 of 2016
with
I.A. No. 10463 of 2018
Ruplal Mahto, aged about 44 yars, son of late Shyam Lal Mahto,
resident of Village-Harhad, P.O.-Bahimar, P.S.-Katkam Sandi,
Dist.-Hazaribag, Jharkhand. ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Home Secretary, Project Bhawan,
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, Jharkhand,
Police Head Quarter, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagannathpur, Dist.-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range,
Hazaribag, P.O.-Hazaribag, P.S.-Hazaribag, Dist.-Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
4. Superintendent of Police, Koderma, P.O.-Koderma, P.s.-Koderma,
Dist.-Koderma. ..... ... Respondents.
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Navneet Toppo, A.C. to S.C.-V.
------
18/ 21.12.2021 Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned A.C. to S.C.-V. for the
State.
2. This petition has been filed for a direction upon the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the
post of police constable from the district of Koderma, as the petitioner
comes within the zone of consideration having qualified all the test.
Further prayer has been made for payment of all consequential benefits to
the petitioner.
3. Advertisement No. 01/04 was published in the newspaper for
the appointment on the post of police constable. The petitioner applied for
the same in OBC category and submitted his certificates along with the
application form within the stipulated period. The petitioner was allotted
the admit card having Roll No. 1003 (Chatra) in the district of Koderma.
The petitioner appeared in all the tests and qualified in all. The petitioner
was issued the appointment letter dated 04.04.2007, but the name of the
petitioner was not figured in the merit list. Aggrieved thereby the
petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Mr. Diwakar Upadhayay, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that joining of the petitioner was denied on the ground
that there is difference in the height from 173.5 cm to 170.7 cm. He
submits that this case is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the
case of Brahmdeo Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(S)
No. 6628 of 2010, which was allowed by the order dated 25.04.2018. He
further submits that the present case is on the similar footing and the
prayer made in this petition may kindly be allowed.
5. Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned A.C. to S.C.-V, appearing for the
respondent-State submits that this petition has been filed after inordinate
delay and on this ground, this petition is fit to be dismissed. To buttress his
argument, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors.
versus T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, wherein in para-
16 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should
not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is
required to weigh the explanation offered and the
acceptability of the same. The court should bear in
mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and
equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it
has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but
simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the
primary principle that when an aggrieved person,
without adequate reason, approaches the court at
his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be
under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis
at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may not be
fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay
would only invite disaster for the litigant who
knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects
inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a
litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,
"procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and
second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise
like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and
causes injury to the lis."
6. He further relied upon a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this court in the case of Mantu Kumar Versus The State of Jharkhand
& Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 7829 of 2013, which was dismissed by the order
dated 21.07.2015, which also relates to the same advertisement number.
7. In view of the above facts, this court has gone through the
materials available on record and after considering the submission of
learned counsels for both the sides, it is an admitted position that the
advertisement is of the year 2004 and the process of appointment has been
completed in the year 2010 itself and this writ petition has been filed after
inordinate delay in the year 2016. So far as the case of Brahmdeo Kumar
(supra) is concerned, the petitioner has approached this court in the year
2010 itself and this petitioner has approached this Court after inordinate
delay, the appointment process in question has already been completed.
Moreover there is no vacant post with regard to said advertisement and for
appointing the petitioner in view of the contention of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, one person, who has already worked more
than ten years, is required to be removed from service, which is against the
mandate of law .
8. At this stage, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory
application also stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
