Jharkhand High Court
Ashish Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 18 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2019 of 2018
1. Ashish Kumar
2. Ujjawal Kumar
3. Dilip Kumar Yadav
4. Sonal Kumar
5. Ravi Shankar Panna
6. Sanjay Kumar Patel
7. Awanish Sinha
8. Parmananad Kumar Rajak
9. Dinesh Kumar Ram
10. Amit Kumar
11. Shailendra Kumar Verma
12. Rahul Kumar
13. Chandan Kumar Barnwal .... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Home Prison and Disaster
Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
Jagannathpur, Ranchi
2. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Chai Bagan,
Kalinagar, Namkum, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Controller of
Examination, Chai Bagan, Kalinagar, Namkum, Ranchi
4. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Ranchi,
Police Headquarter, Dhurwa, Ranchi
... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioner : XX
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra, AC to GP-IV
-----------
05/ 18.05.2023 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for
quashing of the part of Physical Endurance Test for Jharkhand Combined
Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Exam, 2017, whereby the candidates have
been grossly discriminated in the matter of running of 10 Km (25 laps) in a
time of span of 60 minutes inasmuch as some of them were allowed to run
between 5:00 to 6:00 am, whereas most of the candidates were asked to run
between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm in hot and humid conditions, moreover there
cannot be any comparison of endurance among candidates running between 5
am to 7 am with candidates running between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. Further,
prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to conduct the PET
exam once again, by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to run for 10 KM
at 5:00 am in the morning. .
2. At the very outset, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC and Mr. Niraj Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the respondent-State jointly submit that issues involved in
this writ petition have already been decided by this Hon'ble Court in its
judgment dated 19.03.2018 in W.P.(S) No.722 of 2018 and since the Hon'ble
Court has dismissed the said writ application, this case may also be dismissed
in view of the observations made in W.P.(S) No.722 of 2018.
3. On repeated calls, nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Earlier on 26.04.2023 also, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. .
4. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the
respondents and on perusal of the records, it appears that the issue is now no
more res integra as the similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in
W.P.(S) No. 722 of 2018 and vide order dated 19.03.2018, same was dismissed
with the following observations:-
10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions
of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it is an
admitted fact that the petitioners were fully aware of the terms
and conditions of the advertisement. Already, they have been
working as a Police constable. They are very much aware of the
terms and conditions as envisaged in the Police Manual. Rule 53
talks about appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
There cannot be class within class there has to be one parameter
for appointment of Police personnel whether they are Police
constable or Sub-Inspector of Police. There cannot be different
yardstick for appointment. The advertisement was floated in view
of the amended Rules and the petitioners have been declared
successful in the written examination but could not qualify in the
Physical test. Several other candidates along with the petitioners
appeared in the said physical exams and were declared
successful, it is only these petitioners who are aggrieved by the
terms and conditions of the advertisement because they could not
qualify in the physical test. The grounds taken by the petitioners
are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioners are
members of the disciplined force, they are required to abide by
the terms and conditions of the advertisement. No case is made
out for interference in this writ petition, the same merits
dismissal and accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed.
5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement,
the case of the petitioner requires no interference. Resultantly, this writ petition
stands dismissed in terms of order dated 19.03.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.722
of 2018.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Punit/-
