Jharkhand High Court
Lallchand Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:27394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 322 of 2019
----------
Lallchand Ram, son of late Hari Ram, resident of village Bakoriya, P.O.
Bakoriya, P.S. Satbarwa, District Palamau.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary,
Department of Home (Police), Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand,
Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Town and
District Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Police
Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District
Ranchi.
4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary,
Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Town &
District Ranchi.
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
through its Secretary, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.
Namkum, Town & District Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
Mr. Bhanu Kumar No. 1, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG-III
For the Resp.-JSSC : M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar,
Rakesh Ranjan, Jay Prakash, Advocates
----------
C.A.V. on 03.07.2025 Pronounced on 09.09.2025
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner
for the following reliefs:
i. To consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to
the post of Sub-Inspector through Limited Departmental
Examination 2017, being Advertisement No. 9/2017.
ii. To quash Order dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure-13), by
which the claim of the petitioner has been declared
unsuccessful as he failed to appear before the medical
board.
2025:JHHC:27394
iii. To direct the respondents to conduct medical test as per
letter no.1349 dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure-4) and consider
the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Sub-Inspector
3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the
petitioner was appointed as Constable and at present working in the
Dhanbad District Force. The petitioner has applied for appointment on
the post of Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant to Advertisement No.
09/2017 floated by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (In
short JSSC). During the course of selection process, the petitioner got
injured during the 'Running Test' and he had to undergo medical
treatment at CMC, Vellore for better treatment for a period of two
months. The result with respect to the petitioner was kept pending by
the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner prayed for extension of time from
Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission vide letter dated-25.04.2018
for a period of three months. In the meanwhile, the Commission
(JSSC) directed the candidates to report within a period of 15 days
vide letter dated 09.05.2018. Upon which the petitioner vide letter
dated 18.05.2018 requested to the Commission (JSSC) for extension
of time due to medical treatment at CMC, Vellore. Similar request was
made by the petitioner to the Commission for extension of time vide
letter dated-25.05.2018 and 18.06.2018 due to pendency of medical
treatment.
Finally, after issuance of Medical Fitness Certificate by C.M.C,
Vellore on 14.08.2018, the petitioner approached the Commission
(JSSC) for holding medical test but the Commission did not consider
the same. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure
13), was issued declaring the petitioner unsuccessful as not medically
fit. Hence, this Writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide prospectus
which is annexed at Annexure-1 to the writ application and sub-
paragraph 16 (4)(ix) of the prospectus, it is evident that before
terminating the candidature of a candidate, an opportunity of hearing
2025:JHHC:27394
is ought to be provided which in the present case has not been given
to the petitioner and blatantly impugned letter has been issued
rejecting the candidature of the petitioner without affording any
opportunity and it is further evident from para-16(4)(x) of the
prospectus (Annexure-1) that before rejection of candidature,
candidate must be provided sufficient time and in the present case the
petitioner has only been provided impugned letter of rejection of
candidature through counter-affidavit.
6. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner has never
received the same and therefore the petitioner has been deprived of
sufficient opportunity to defend his case. Further, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in various judgments has also held that any order passed in
violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void.
The further case of the writ petitioner is that the respondents are
also duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment
on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, pursuant to Advertisement no.
09/2017, inasmuch as, the petitioner has been declared successful in
written and physical test and his appointment was kept pending only
due to further medical treatment.
7. Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the
Director General of Police has also recommended to the J.S.S.C for
the re-consideration of the case of petitioner vide letter dated
11.12.2018 after issuance of the impugned order; however, the same
has not been considered (Annexure 14).
8. He further contended that a rule amended or repealed cannot be
done by way by an executive order. Moreover, any amendment or
repeal made will always act prospectively until and unless specifically
mentioned retrospectively.
Upon relying the aforesaid argument learned counsel prays for
quashing of the impugned order and direction upon the respondent to
conduct fresh medical test for the Petitioner.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that Petitioner
was declared successful in the written test examination and as such,
2025:JHHC:27394
he was also called for physical and medical test and the Petitioner
appeared in the physical test examination and during the test he got
injury due to which his result was kept pending in the result dated
22.02.2018 and it was decided to provide two months' time to the
Petitioner for his treatment and he was also directed to appear before
the Medical Board for his medical examination and to submit the
documents of medical fitness test before the Commission within the
aforesaid period of 2 months.
10. The Petitioner had submitted his representation dated
25.04.2018 before the J.S.S.C and requested to grant 3 months further
time in addition to 2 months' time which was provided to him earlier
for appearing before the Medical Board for his medical examination.
After considering the representation dated 25.04.2018, J.S.S.C vide
letter no. 1896 dated 09.05.2018 decided to grant further 15 days'
time to the Petitioner for his appearance before the Medical Board.
Petitioner did not appear before the Medical Board within the
extended time and further requested for extension of time vide its
letters dated 23.05.2018 and 30.05.2018.
He contended that several opportunities were provided to the
Petitioner to appear before the Medical Board but Petitioner failed to
appear before the Medical Board and as such, he was not declared
successful and information to the said effect was also given to the
Petitioner vide Letter No. 2809 dated 11.06.2018.
11. He lastly submits as per the clause-13(Gha) of the
advertisement, for declaring successful for appointment to the post of
Sub-Inspector, the concerned candidate is required to pass medical
fitness test failing which his candidature will be not considered for
appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
Moreover, the Limited Departmental Examination Rule 2016
has been repealed vide notification dated 15.06.2023; no further
recruitment under the said advertisement can be made and as such, no
relief can be granted to the Petitioner.
2025:JHHC:27394
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits, it
transpires from the sub-paragraph 16 (4)(ix) of the prospectus, that
before terminating the candidature of a candidate, an opportunity of
hearing is ought to be provided which in the present case has not been
given to the Petitioner and it is further evident from para-16(4)(x) of
the prospectus that before rejection of candidature, candidate must be
provided sufficient time and in the present case the petitioner has only
been provided impugned letter of rejection of candidature through
counter-affidavit. However, it is categorically pleaded by the
Petitioner that he has never received the same and therefore, it can be
said that the Petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to
defend his case.
13. For brevity, Para 16 (4)(ix) & (x) are quoted herein below:
(ix) अभ्यर्थी की उम्मीदवारी रद्द करने के ववषय पर वनर्णय लेने के पूवण
उसे अपना पक्ष रखने के वलये समुवित अवसर वदया जायेगा तर्था पूरे
मामले पर सम्यक रूप से वविार करने के उपरान्त आयोग
ववविसम्मत वनर्णय लेगा।
(x) उम्मीदवारी को रद्द करने के ववषय पर वनर्णय की जानकारी
अभ्यर्थी को यर्थासमय दी जायेगी।
14. Reliance in this regard be taken from the judgement rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur1
wherein it has been held that it is an elementary principle of natural
justice that no person should be condemned without hearing.
15. So far as ground raised by the Respondents that Limited
Departmental Examination Rule 2016 has been repealed vide
notification dated 15.06.2023 and no further recruitment under the
said advertisement can be made is concerned; the saving clause in
repeal notification itself says that it does not affect anything which has
already been done within the existence of the said rule.
For reference para-4 of repeal notification is quoted herein
below:
4. ऐसे वनरसन (Repeal) के होने पर भी "झारखण्ड राज्य पुवलस अवर
वनरीक्षक सीवमत ववभागीय प्रवतयोवगता परीक्षा वनयुक्ति वनयमावली,
1989 SCC OnLine SC 428
2025:JHHC:27394
(भती पद्धवत) 2016" के तहत वकया गया कायण या की गई कोई कारण वाई
प्रभाववत नहीीं होगी।
16. Moreover, impugned order has been passed during the existence
of the erstwhile rules and thereafter Petitioner challenged the same in
the instant Writ application and during pendency of this Writ
application, the aforesaid rule was repealed on 15.06.2023 and as such
this ground raised by the Respondents is not sustainable.
17. It further transpires that pursuant to order dated 16.01.2024
passed by this Court to file specific affidavit, supplementary counter
affidavit dated 26.02.2024 has been filed by the Respondent J.S.S.C.
wherein it has been stated that selection process for appointment on
the post of Sub Inspector in terms of Advertisement No. 09/2017 has
already been completed in the year 2018, which is falsified by the
notice dated 10.04.2024 for Medical Test issued by the J.S.S.C
pursuant to order passed in L.P.A. No. 297 of 2018, which shows that
appointment is still being made out of same Advertisement No. 9/17;
as such, there will be no impediment for conducting fresh medical test
for the Petitioner.
18. Having regards to the aforesaid discussion, coupled with the
fact that the Petitioner was not afforded opportunity of natural justice
as per the advertisement, the impugned order dated 11.06.2018
(Annexure 13), is hereby, quashed and set aside and further the
Respondent J.S.S.C is directed to conduct fresh medical test of the
Petitioner and if he is found physically fit, then consequential order be
issued in his favour.
19. Accordingly, the instant Writ application is allowed. Pending
I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
kunal/-
AFR
