Jharkhand High Court
Ram Niwas Tiwari And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 21 April, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 613 of 2013
---
1. Ram Niwas Tiwari
2. Pradeep Kumar Pandey
3. Raju Kumar Tiwari
4. Ranjeet Kumar
5. Shashikant Upadhyay
6. Satyendra Ram
7. Goutam Kumar Upadhyay
8. Ram Lal Ram
9. Krishna Ram
10. Ajay Ram
11. Brajesh Kumar Chandrawanshi
12. Akash Kumar Paswan
13. Parminder Kumar Singh
14. Gajendra Singh
15. Sanjay Kumar Singh
16. Amresh Kumar Singh
--- --- ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau at Daltonganj
3. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa cum-Chairman,
Palamau Range Driver Police Selection Board, Palamau
4. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau at Daltonganj --- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, JC to AG
---
10/ 21.04.2015Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioners were candidates for appointment to the post of Police Constable in the district of Palamau under Advertisement No. 1/2010. They claimed to have got more than cut-off marks and qualified in all the physical and other tests. According to them, despite the fact that there were more than 200 vacancies existing, respondents have chosen not to make any further appointment against the same which has denied the petitioners' valuable right to appointment.
3. As would appear from the stand of the respondents, conveyed through their counsel, none of these petitioners have got more than cut-off marks. While some of them may have got cut-off marks, but persons elder to them in age have been appointed in terms of statutory rule prevalent in the respondent department in respect of such recruitment exercise. According to them, person who got 28 marks and had the date of birth as 02.01.1986, was appointed as a constable, but none of 2. these petitioners are elder to him or have scored more than cut-off marks. It is further their stand that the claim of the petitioners of existence of more vacancies under the said advertisement, shall in no way strengthen the case of the petitioner if none of the persons junior to them in the merit list have been appointed as per uniform yardstick followed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may loose their age in due course of time and would be disentitled in any future appointment, therefore, respondents may be directed to consider their cases in future appointment.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the relevant materials on record, this Court is of the view that none of these petitioners have been able to make out a case for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to appoint them as constable in view of undisputed facts that none of them have got more than cut-off marks of 28 and if some of them have got cut-off marks of 28, persons elder to them in age have been appointed as per the statutory rule 663 as amended from time to time.
6. In such circumstances, petitioners cannot claim a legal right to seek appointment against any unfilled vacancy as is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Das Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 8613/1983 reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47. Since no relief can be granted in the present writ application to these petitioners, it would be also wholly out of place to make any observation as sought for by the petitioners for consideration of their cases in any future recruitment exercise.
7. The writ petition therefore devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/