Jharkhand High Court
Sudhir Kumar Shukla vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 16 August, 2017
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.309 of 2016
Sudhir Kumar Shukla, son of Sri Giriwar Shukla, Resident of Dalhekhurd,
P.O. Nawdiha, P.S. Palamu, District-Palamu. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand near Project Building, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. Inspector General of Police, Palamu Range, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.
Daltonganj, District-Palamu.
4. Superintendent of Police-Cum-Chairman, Palamu Range, Driver Police
Selection Board, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamu.
5. Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.
Jamshedpur, District-East Singbhum. ...... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
For the Respondents-State : Mr. Chanchal Jain, J.C to A.G
-----
07/16.08.2017The petitioner has approached this Court for appointment against the post of Driver Police in the District of Palamu in Advertisement No.01/2010 which has been rejected on arbitrary ground.
From factual matrix, pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2010, the writ petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Police Driver. After appearing in physical test, driving test and written test, he secured 37 marks and claimed to be fit for appointment on the post of Police Driver distinguishing the specific case of the petitioner that inspite of obtaining 37 marks he has not been appointed on the post of Police Constable Driver, though, persons having similar marks appointed on the post of Constable Driver. Petitioner was not appointed on the post of Police Driver though he had obtained 37 marks and persons having lesser marks were considered and appointed for the post of Police Driver, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.
Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after duly qualified had obtained 37 marks in the selection process meant for appointment for the Driver Constable. Learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrates to the courts that persons having similar marks and junior to him have been considered for appointment on the post of Police Driver which is arbitrary and illegal, the petitioner has not been considered for appointment.
Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the master chart it is apparent that persons who have obtained 38 marks are from Palamau and not from Garhwa and entire appointment has to be considered keeping in view the entire merit list of the candidates and not any particular district.
Per-contra, a counter-affidavit has been filed, Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned J.C to A.G for the respondent-State submits that there is discrimination as petitioner has obtained only 37 marks and as such has not been considered for appointment as the last candidate in the district of Palamu has obtained 38 marks. Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the person from Palamu having 37 marks have been considered for appointment on the post of Police Driver Constable.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of considered view that any appointment has to be done as per criteria fixed in the selection process. The appointment has to be done as per the merit list. From the merit list, it transpires that persons having 38 marks have been appointed in the district of Palamu. However, looking to the contention of the petitioner that even persons obtaining 37 marks have been appointed, I here by direct the respondent no.4-Superintendent of Police- cum-Chairman, Palamu Range, Driver Police Selection Board, Daltonganj, Palamu to consider the case of the petitioner and if it is found that persons having 37 marks have been appointed on the post of Constable Driver, the case of the petitioner should also be considered in accordance with law. But if no persons have been appointed on the post of Driver Police Constable having 37 marks, the case of the petitioner remains as shut and closed. The entire decision will be taken within six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) RKM