Jharkhand High Court
Satish Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 12 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 642 of 2023
1. Satish Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of Lakshman Ram, Resident of
Village- Lalgarh, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
2. Upendra Kumar Manjhi, aged about 38 years, son of Nanddeo Manjhi,
Resident of Village- Lalgarh, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Bishrampur, Dist.-
Palamau
3. Ramashray Ram, aged about 42 years, son of Parsu Ram, Resident of
Village- Sohgara, P.O.- Sheopur, P.S.- Manjhiaon, Dist.- Garhwa
4. Pramod Sahu, aged about 46 years, son of Jay Govind Sahu, Resident of
Village- Lalgarh, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
5. Sanjay Baitha, aged about 37 years, son of Kameshwar Baitha, Resident
of Village- Lalgarh, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
6. Bachani Mahto, aged about 50 years, son of Bhola Mahto, Resident of
Village- Lalgarh, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
7. Shiw Saw, aged about 48 years, son of Sri Mithu Sahu, Resident of
Village- Lalgarh, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
8. Anil Kumar Mehta @ Anil Kumar Mahto, aged about 42 years, son of
Braj Kishore Mahto, Resident of Village- Panjari Kala, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.-
Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
9. Nasim Ansari @ Md. Nasim Ansari, aged about 37 years, son of
Kasmuddin Ansari, Resident of Village- Panjari Kala, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.-
Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
10. Anil Mochi, aged about 42 years, son of Yaduni Mochi, Resident of
Village- Lalgarh, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
11. Anand Kumar Saw, aged about 41 years, son of Girivar Saw, Resident of
Village- Lalgarh, P.O.- Lalgarh, P.S.- Bishrampur, Dist.- Palamau
...... Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of
Jharkhand, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist.- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribag Zone, P.O. & P.S.-
Hazaribag, Dist.- Hazaribag
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribag,
Dist.- Hazaribag
5. The Superintendent of Police, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.- Koderma, Dist.-
Koderma
6. The Chairman, Police Selection Board, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.-
Hazaribag, Dist.- Hazaribag.
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
For the Appellants : Mr. Jai Praksh Jha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV
Order No.05/ Dated: 12th February 2024
The appellants have challenged the order dated 4th October
2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1546 of 2021 by which the Writ Court declined
to issue any direction to the respondents to consider the case of the
appellants for appointment to the post of Constable.
2. In the order dated 4th October 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1546
of 2021, the writ Court held as under:
"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of
the records, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is
warranted in the instant writ petition. The appointment pursuant to
Advertisement No. 01/2004 has a chequered history. Many writ petitions
were filed and the leading case is W.P.(S) No. 1242 of 2005 (Krishnaji &
Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and the same is reported in (2006) 4
JLJR 703 (HC) wherein it was clearly held that all the persons who
appeared in the recruitment process cannot be held to be guilty of the
manipulations. Thereafter enquiry was held and it was found that the
persons, against whom there were allegations of malpractices, were
debarred for appointment and the persons who secured more marks and
were declared successful in all the tests, were considered for
appointment. After that, many writ petitions were filed on behalf of either
those candidates who were found to be in malpractices or those whose
cases fell within the zone of consideration and thereafter, none of the writ
petitions were entertained by this Court, taking into account the letter
issued by the Director General of Police, Ranchi vide Memo No. 2026/P
dated 18.8.2010.
6. In the instant case, the selection process took place in the year 2004.
The appointment letters were issued in the year 2006 and the same were
cancelled in the year 2007 which was challenged by several persons. In
the year 2021, the present petitioners are seeking employment out of the
said penal when twenty years almost have already elapsed. No 3
explanation has been given regarding the delay and laches in filing of the
writ petition after inordinate delay. In this context, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava &
Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 has held in paragraph-22.2, which
reads as under:-
"22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-
recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays
as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not
challenge the wrongful action in their cases and
acquiesced into the same and woke up after long
delay only because of the reason that their
counterparts who had approached the court earlier in
time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees
cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered
in the case of similarly situated persons be extended
to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and
laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be
a valid ground to dismiss their claim."
7. Moreover, the appointment pursuant to the advertisement in question is
time barred in view of the specific letter issued by the Director General
of Police contained in memo no. 2026/P dated 18.8.2010. Therefore, it
would be unjust to entertain the instant writ petition and issue direction
upon the respondents for consideration of the case of petitioners after
twenty years.
8. As a cumulative effect, no interference is warranted in the writ
petition and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost."
3. The writ Court referred to the various proceedings in
connection to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 which was issued for
appointment of the Constables and after referring the case of "State of U.P.
& Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347" formed
an opinion that it shall not be proper to entertain the writ petition, after a
lapse of about 20 years.
Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submits that the litigation in connection to the appointment of the
Constables pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 has been
continuing since 2005 and therefore the writ petition could not have been
dismissed on the ground of delay.
4. However, as a matter of fact, the appellants approached this
Court in the year 2021 and before that by an order of the Director General
of Police contained in Memo no. 2026/P dated 18 th August 2010 any
appointment from the list prepared pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1 of
2004 was stopped. May be on enquiry certain eligible candidates who have
secured more marks were granted appointment to the post of Constable, the
appellants have failed to indicate any plausible reason for approaching this
Court 16 years after the result was published.
5. For the foregoing reasons, considering no merit in this Letters
Patent Appeal, L.P.A. No. 642 of 2023 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Pramanik/-
