1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 790 of 2008 --- Kamjeet Singh, son of Sri Ravindra Singh, Resident of Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S. Katras, Dist. Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi 3. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, P.O. and P.S Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi 4. The Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Doranda, P.O and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Doranda, P.O. And P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi 6. The Chairman, Police Selection Committee, Ranchi Range, Nepal House, P.O. And P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi 7. The Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga, P.S., P.S. and Dist. Lohardaga … … Respondent --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar For the Respondents : J.C. to A.G. --- 09/22.06.2015 Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned J.C. to A.G. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner by virtue of this writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to show cause as to what steps have been taken pursuant to the direction issued by the Respondent No. 7 vide Memo No. 259 dated 25.02.2006 by which the Respondent No. 7 ( Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga) was directed to show cause as to under what circumstances, the petitioner even after having been declared successful, has not been selected/appointed as Constable. It has further been payed by the writ petitioner to direct the respondents to issue a letter of appointment to the petitioner as the petitioner was awarded 18 points/marks on the basis of his height and qualification of the petitioner.
3. An advertisement was published on 13.01.2004 in the local newspaper “Hindustan” being Advertisement No. 01/2004 for filling up of 12471 posts of Constable in the Jharkhand Police Force/District Police/Jharkhand Armed Police. The petitioner being eligible in all respects had filled up the application form on 15.02.2004. The 2 respondents upon finding the application form of the petitioner complete in all respects issued the acknowledgement to the petitioner and allotted the Roll No.
8249. The petitioner had appeared in both written and physical tests and both the tests the petitioner had been declared successful. However, in the merit list published, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the said list and on enquiry the petitioner has come to know that although the respondents had awarded him 18 marks/points which comprised 6 marks for matriculation and 12 marks for having height of 178 cms but inspite of the same the petitioner was never selected for appointment.
4. Considering the said fact the respondent No. 4 had show caused the respondent No. 7 as to under what circumstances the petitioner was not selected for the post of constable although he was eligible in all respects.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 6 marks/points were awarded for the educational qualification of matriculation and 12 marks/points were awarded having height of 178 cms but even though the petitioner had got 18 marks/points, he was never selected for the post of Constable. It has further been submitted that the application form which was filled up by the petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement No. 01/2004, in which it was categorically mentioned therein at Clause – 5 that the petitioner was a matriculate and the School Leaving Certificate was also enclosed therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that admittedly the petitioner was a matriculate and had been eligible in all respects for the post of Constable but he was not selected.
6. Controverting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned J.C. to A. G. has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6 that since the petitioner being non-matric had got only 17 marks/points in the general category to which the petitioner belongs and the cut off marks being 18 the petitioner was rightly denied his selection to the post of Constable.
7. Learned J.
C. to A. G. has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the extract of the Master Chart of the District of 3 Lohardaga in which against the name of the petitioner it has been mentioned that the matriculation certificate has not been enclosed. Learned counsel further adds that since it was a mandatory requirement on the part of the petitioner to submit the proof of educational qualification alongwith the application form and that having not been done by the petitioner his candidature was rightly not considered by the respondents.
8. The respondents had not considered the case of the petitioner on the presumption that the petitioner was a non-matric and although he had been successful in all other tests both written and physical but the marks which was obtained by the petitioner was less than the cut off marks/points i.e. 18 marks/points which was prescribed for selection. The supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents substantiates the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner was a matriculate as at clause – 5 of the said application form it has clearly been mentioned by the petitioner that he was a matriculate and that the School Leaving Certificate was enclosed along with the said application form.
9. If the arguments of the learned J.
C. to A. G. to the effect that no proof of educational qualification was submitted by the petitioner along with the application form in terms of the advertisement which mandated so is accepted then under what circumstance the petitioner was allowed to undergo the examination, both written and physical tests, has not been answered by the learned J.
C. to A. G.
10. The entire materials was taken into consideration and thereafter letter dated 25.02.2006 was issued by the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 7 asking him to explain as to under what circumstances the petitioner having been successful in all respects was not selected for the appointment to the post of Constable.
11. The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a matriculate and had been successful in all respects and had obtained cut off marks as has been prescribed by the respondents. In such circumstances the respondents could not have denied the selection of the petitioner to the post of Constable. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 6 to consider the claim of the 4 petitioner for selection to the post of Constable in view of what has been discussed above provided the petitioner fulfills any other requisite criteria as would be necessary under the law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
12. This application is allowed and disposed of. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-