Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7 of 2014 Rajeev Kumar Rai ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.
3. Inspector General of Police (Personnel) Jharkhand, Ranchi.... Respondents. ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH ------ For the Petitioner : M/s Amit Kumar & Manindra Kumar Sinha. For the Respondent : Mr. J.C. to A.G. ------ 03 / 21.07.2015: Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner was a candidate for appointment of driver constable under Advertisement No. 01 of 2010 in the district of East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. He was shown as successful candidate in General (Home Guard) category for the East Singhbhum as per result at Annexure-2. When he was not given appointment letter he approached this Court after making representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in W.P.(S) No. 5269 of 2011, which was disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, by judgment dated 03.01.2012 (Annexation-7). The petitioner's claim has been rejected vide Annexure-9 by the impugned order on the ground that in the driving license no. 2229 of 2006, photocopy of which was submitted by him it was found on verification from the office of the District Transport officer, Ranchi, that his name in the record was Raju Kumar Rai and his date of birth is 28.01.1983. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur found that the petitioner had done overwriting in the original driving license to change his name from Raju Kumar Rai to Rajeev Kumar Rai, therefore, the case of the petitioner was rejected as he has tampered with the original document. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the error in the driving license relating to his age were duly rectified as per communication , at Annexure-12, dated 04.10.2013 bearing memo no. 7730 of the D.T.O., Ranchi and it was made as 8.7.1986 in place of 28.01.1983. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is Rajeev -2- Kumar Rai and the relevant details i.e. his name, date of birth, parentage and place of residence have all been verified by the respondent- authorities from the concerned office of the District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad. It is submitted by referring to letter no. 2405 dated 27.12.2010 that District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad after due verification from the original records maintained in the Government High School, Jamhour, Aurangabad, through its Headmaster found that transfer certificate issued by the said School containing all relevant details is correct as per records maintained in the said school. It is further submitted that the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had also inquired from the office of the D.T.O., Ranchi the driving license of the petitioner also found all details relating to his father's name, place of village, police station and district as correct except date of birth and the name, which was wrongly entered as Raju Kumar Rai. It is further submitted that the petitioner's candidature has been unfairly and unjustifiably rejected only on the assumption that he himself may have corrected the name in the original driving license as Rajeev Kumar Rai in place of Raju Kumar Rai. It is submitted that it is no where mentioned that the name of the petitioner and other essential details are different from the original record maintained in the school. Therefore, this ground to deny his candidature for such employment is not tenable. Therefore, he sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 issued by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and also sought direction upon the respondents to consider his case for appointment as driver constable on the basis that he was a successful candidate in the recruitment process. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. The main plea taken by the counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner's driving license no. 2229/06 dated 7.3.2006 contained the name Raju Kumar Rai and the petitioner himself changed his name as Rajeev Kumar Rai as has been found from the verification of the issuing authority i.e. D.T.O. Ranchi. It is further submitted that the petitioner had tampered with the original driving license and that alone is sufficient ground for rejection of his candidature. Respondents have however, enclosed the verification report of the District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad as also the Assistant Sub-Inspector bearing letter no. 2706 dated 13.09.2010 and -3- 10.10.2010. The transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner has been verified and all details have been found correct as per the school records. Report of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, which was submitted after verification from the office of the D.T.O. Ranchi, has found difference in the name of petitioner as Raju Kumar Rai and date of birth is 28.01.1983. This date of birth has, however, been corrected by D.T.O. Ranchi as per Annexure-12 dated 04.10.2013 as 08.07.86. However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the action of the petitioner in tampering with the original record is sufficient ground to deny his candidature, though other details have been found to be correct as per verification. I have considered the relevant factual details available on record and as pleaded by the parties and submissions advanced on their behalf. It appears that the ground of rejection of claim of the petitioner is based upon overwriting done in the driving license, which is issued in the year 2006. Admittedly the petitioner's name Rajeev Kumar Rai is shown as the correct name as per official record maintained in the school but while issuing driving license a different name Raju Kumar Rai appears to have been entered in the record of D.T.O., Ranchi. All other details of the petitioner relating to father's name, village, police station and the district are correct as per the verification done from the official record and communicated through D.S.E., Aurangabad vide letter dated 13.09.2010 also enclosed to the counter affidavit of the respondents. It is also evident that the date of birth in the driving license has been corrected by the D.T.O. Ranchi. Even by both the date of birth i.e. 28.1.1983 and 8.7.1986 it cannot be said that the petitioner may have tried to gain undue advantage by obtaining driving license at the time of appointment, since the driving license itself was issued in the year 2006. Even reckoning his age on 8th July 1986 he was completed 20 years of age by 8.7.1986. The inference drawn by the respondents that the petitioner himself was responsible for correction of his name in the original record i.e. Driving License is, however, not substantiated by any further enquiry. If all the relevant records of the petitioner including his name was found correct in the official record maintained in the school and the transfer certificate issued by the said school, this error in the name in the driving license should not have made a reason to deny the employment to the petitioner, if he otherwise is a successful -4- candidate and not concealed or suppressed any fact. Therefore, it appears that the rejection of the petitioner is based upon a hyper technical ground, when respondents themselves on verification have found all details of the petitioner correct from the concerned school. In such circumstance it appears that a fresh consideration is required to be made by the respondents in respect of the claim of the petitions for his appointment as driver constable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 issued vide Memo No. 4112 by the Respondent no.2 , is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur for taking fresh decision keeping into account all the relevant verifications done in respect of the claim of the petitioner and other documents available on record. Such decision must be taken within a reasonable time preferably within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. (APARESH KUMAR SINGH , J) Sharma/-