Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Prakash Singh vs Chief Security Commissioner,Ra on 1 August, 2011
Author: D.N.Patel
Bench: D.N.Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.260 of 2011
Vijay Prakash Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection
Force, South Eastern Railway & Another ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
------
For the Petitioner: M/s Naresh Pd. Thakur
For the Respondents: M/s Ram Nivas Roy
-----
02/Dated 1st August, 2011
1. Present petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent Railway Protection Force to allow extension of time to the petitioner for submission of documents before the respondent Railway Protection Force. The documents in question are pertaining to age proof and educational qualification. Advertisement for the post of Constable in the RPF/RPSF was published in the year 2007. Petitioner applied for the post in question and on being provisionally selected, he was asked by the respondent no. 1, i.e. Railway Protection Force, to submit duly attested copies of the requisite proof of age and educational qualification on 11th
-12th January, 2009 during office hours of any working day. Petitioner did not have the requisite certificates and therefore, he has filed this petition for getting extension of time.
2. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not possess these documents and extension of time was sought for only to acquire some documents. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that there has been a long gap between the date of advertisement for the post, i.e. in the year 2007 and the scheduled date for production of requisite documents, i.e. 11th -12th January, 2009. The petitioner ought to have the requisite proof of his age and educational qualifications in his possession as these are the basic documents, which are required to be produced before the authority at one or other stage of the selection process. However, counsel for the respondents submitted that as requested by the petitioner, even after extension of time granted to -2- him by respondent no.1, the petitioner failed to produce the requisite documents.
3. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly on the ground that basic documents pertaining to proof of age and educational qualification were asked to be submitted on 11th-12th January, 2009 and advertisement for the post in question was given in the year 2007. Generally, at one or other stage of a selection process, the pre- requisite qualification and eligibility, as claimed to have possessed by the candidate, has to be checked with the supporting original documents. Therefore, these documents ought to have been presented by the petitioner on the date fixed by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner has failed to present the original documents pertaining to age proof and educational qualification and as there is no justifiable reason for it, petitioner can not be given any extension of time. These basic documents ought to have been kept ready by the petitioner so as to present it before the respondent no.1 for verification of age and educational qualifications, which has direct connection with the eligibility and pre-requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post of constable in Railway Protection Force.
4. In view of these facts, there is no justifiable reason for extension of time as there was a substantial time gap between the date of advertisement and date of production of the requisite documents before the respondent authority.
5. There is no substance in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
(D.N.Patel, J.) s.m.