Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Dilip Kumar Son Of Sri Prakash Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 8 May, 2018

Author: D.N. Patel

Bench: Amitav K. Gupta, D.N. Patel

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         I.A. No. 6541 of 2017
                                  with
                         L.P.A. No. 65 of 2017
1.   Dilip Kumar son of Sri Prakash Thakur
2.   Ravindra Kumar son of Sri Maheshi Thakur
3.   Vikash Kumar son of Sri Kapildeo Prasad
            All resident of Patel Nagar, Sector-I, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. -
Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand Pin-834004
                                           ...    ...         Appellants
                               Versus
1.    The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District
Ranchi
2.    Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi near Project Bhawan,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District Ranchi
3.    Inspector General of Police, Office of the Jharkhand Jaguar (S.T.F.)
Near Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District Ranchi
4.    Superintendent of Police (Adminnistration)-cum-Chairman, Selection
Committee, Jharkhand Jaguar (S.T.F.), Near Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.,
Dhurwa, District Ranchi
                         ...   ...         Respondents/Respondents
                               ------
      CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
                               -----
For the Appellant:      M/s Abhay Kr. Mishra
For the Respondents: M/s Ajit Kumar
                               -----
           th
07/Dated 8 May, 2018
Per D.N. Patel, J.

I.A. No. 6541 of 2017

1. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 41 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Having heard counsels for both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph No. 5, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.

3. In view of these facts, we hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6541 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.

4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners, who are seeking employment on the post of Barber, but, were denied by the respondent State. Hence, they have filed W.P.(S) No. 598 of 2016 and the said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 30th November, 2016 and hence, they have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Having heard counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the only reason for denying employment to the three appellants have been mentioned, very categorically, in paragraph No.s 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, viz. "supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 4", in W.P.(S) No. 598 of 2016. For ready reference, paragraph 5,6 and 7 of the aforesaid counter affidavit filed by the respondent State authorities is quotted hereunder:

"5. That it is stated and submitted that it is clear from point no.10 of the advertisement no. 01/2014 that the practical trade test will be of total 100 marks & the merit list will be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the said test only. It also mentions that 40 percent marks are the minimum pass marks of the trade test.

6. That it is stated and submitted that it clearly specifies that the total 100 marks to be awarded in the practical exam would be divided into 03 major part vis:-

I 1st part will consist of 60 marks and it will cover the practical test of the trade of the candidate.

II 2nd part will consist of 20 marks and it will cover the turn out, presentation and upkeep by candidate.

III 3rd part will also consist of 20 marks and it will cover the special skill, qualification and work experience of the candidate.

A photocopy of the advertisement no. 01/2014 is being enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure -A to this affidavit.

7. That it is stated and submitted that the distribution of the marks of all 03 petitioners namely BR 2140 Dilip Kumar, BR 2354 Bikash Kumar & BR 2051 Ravindra Kumar is given below in tabular form:-

Distribution of Marks (100) Sr. Roll no. & 60.00 20.00 marks 20.00 marks (special (100.00 Remarks Name marks (presentation, skill, qualification, marks (practical turn out etc.) work experience test) 1 BR 2140 25.5 8 8 41.5 Passed in the practical Dilip exam but his rank stood as Kumar 197, whereas the last person to be selected in barber Gen. Category scored 59.00 out of 100.00 2 BR 2354 18.75 7 7 32.75 Failed to gain jeven the Bikash pass mark of 40% Kumar 3 BR 2051 28.75 8 9 45.75 Passed in the practical Ravindra exam but his ranks stood Kumar as 128, whereas the last person to be selected in barber Gen. Category scored 59.00 out of 100.00 The photocopies of the master chart of the petitioners are being enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-B Series to this affidavit."

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that these appellants cannot be appointed because Dilip Kumar, who is Appellant No. 1, has secured 41.50 marks in the practical examination and his rank is 197. The respondent State has appointed the candidates securing minimum 59 marks in practical examination as Barbers in General category and as the marks obtained by Appellant No. 1 is less than the minimum marks for appointment, i.e. 59, hence, he cannot be appointed.

So far as Appellant No.2 is concerned, who is Ravindra Kumar, has secured 45.75 out of total 100 marks in practical examination, whereas, candidates selected in General category by the respondent State on the post in question have secured not less than 59 marks out of 100. Thus, his marks in practical examination are lower than that of the lastly selected candidate as Barber in the General category, hence, no error has been committed by the respondent State in not giving appointment to Appellant No. 2.

So far as Vikash Kumar-Appellant No.3 is concerned, he has secured 32.75 out of 100 marks. As minumum pass marks is 40, hence, he also cannot be appointed.

7. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 598 of 2016 vide judgement and order dated 30th November, 2016 and we are not inclined to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge.

8. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

(D.N.Patel, A.C.J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) s.m.