Jharkhand High Court
Anil Tanti Son Of Sri Pali Tanti Village ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 372, 2018 (3) AJR 433
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 248 of 2014
Anil Tanti Son of Sri Pali Tanti Village Aambanchaniya P.O. Pathrada P.S.
Sarath District Deoghar. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The state of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jharkhand, Ranchi having
its office at Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at
Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General, Santhal Pargana Division, P.O. and P.S.
and District Dumka.
5. The Superintendent of Police Deoghar Cum Chairman of appointment
Committee No.6. ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G
Mr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate
.......
08/ Judgement On 14.05.2018
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.
In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has interalia sought for direction upon the respondents for appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance to Advertisement No.1/2010 for District Force as well as Industries Security Force. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon respondent for production of the original master chart regarding selection conducted by the Selection Board and entire selection list in OBC I category.
2. In pursuance to Advertisement No.1/2010 for District force as well as Industries Security Force, the petitioner submitted the application for Deoghar District in District Force and after completion of the selection procedure, final result was published in the month of March, 2013 and the name of the petitioner did not find place in the select list. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the competent authority under right to Information Act 2 for providing his marks viz-a-viz last selected candidates in his category. As per the information supplied the mark secured was 32 marks and his height was 159.3 CM. It has been averred in the writ application that though the height of the petitioner was more than 160 CM as recorded in the master chart where the petitioner put his signature after measurement was taken, but to utter surprise of the petitioner who secured more than the last selected candidates in the category of OBC, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the select list. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the result of the selection was not published after the selection process and the candidates were not in position to file objection in terms of notification dated 12th November, 2001 bearing memo no.3300 issued by the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, more specifically Clause 8 and 9 thereof. Therefore, the plea of the respondents that the petitioner has secured 32 marks but the height of the petitioner was less than 160 cms when the height of the petitioner has been measured as 161.544 cms vide Annexure-7 which fact has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has secured more than the last selected candidates under the OBC category. Thereafter, the non-selection of the petitioner is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter- affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that appointment for the post of Constable under Advertisement No.1 of 2010 was conducted by "Chayan Parshad No.6 (Selection Committee no.6)" by following the selection criteria strictly. Since, the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria of height fixed for the appointment for constable in District Police, for which was fixed 160 cm for General and OBC candidates, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered. As per recorded in Master chart his height is 159.3 cm which is less than 160 cm (Height prescribed for the appointment in District Police Force) as evident from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Therefore, the result of the petitioner was not published in the final list.
35. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter-affidavit has submitted that as per the provision of Police Manual, height of the petitioner was measured which was less than 160 cm and the petitioner has made himself examined by the C.S. Hospital, Deoghar suo motto and there is no authenticity with regard to said report and no legal sanctity can be attached to that report. Since, the petitioner failed in height measurement therefore, his name was not included in the name of the successful candidates.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and going through the records minutely, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner due to the following facts:-
(I) The petitioner's name does not find place in the final select list because of the fact that the petitioner having height of 159.3 could not meet the criteria of height of 160 cm as per the requirement enshrined in police manual and therefore, since the petitioner failed to qualify minimum height criteria of 160 cm, he was not selected by the selection committee and no infirmity or illegality has been committed by the respondents in not selecting the petitioner because of his lack of minimum required height.
(II) With regard to the petitioner's claim that his height is more than 160 cm as has been measured by the Doctor of Sadar Hospital, Deoghar vide Annexure-7 to the rejoinder, cannot be construed to be conclusive evidence when in the master chart, the height of the petitioner has been mentioned as 159.3 cm. In the meantime, the final selection has been made and the appointment has been made since 2013 more than 5 years elapsed and to tinker with the selection would result in unsettling settled position.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court would be loath to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) RKM