Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Ranjan Kumar & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & 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.2289 of 2010
1. Sunil Ranjan Kumar.
2. Dilip Ranjan Kumar. ... ...Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Ministry of Home,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. Deputy Inspector General, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh.
3. Superintendent of Police, Koderma -cum- Chairman of North
Chotanag- pur Police Constable Selection Committee, Board No.3,
Hazaribagh.
4. Superintendent of Police, Giridih cum Member, Police Constable
Selection Committee, Hazaribagh.
5. Sanjit Kumar Gupta, Home Guard Army No.1606.
6. Munnu Chatterjee, Home Guard Army No. 1607. ...Respondents
---------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K.Mukhopadhyay, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohit Sinha, J.C. to S.C.IV.
---------
06/ 16.08.2017The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for appointment on the post of constable in view of advertisement No.1/04.
Factual Matrix
2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have applied for appointment on the post of constable in view of advertisement No.1/04. Having fulfilling all the requisite qualification, they applied for the same and appeared in the written as well as physical test and they were declared successful. However, when the merit list was prepared, the petitioners' name did not find place in the merit list.
3. It is specific case of the petitioners that they were home guard, their cases were considered in non-homeguard category. The persons who obtained training with the petitioners were appointed in the home guard category and the case of the petitioners was not considered neither any offer of appointment was given to them. As the case of the petitioners was not considered, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ application.
4. Earlier the petitioners have also moved this Court vide Annexure-3 which was disposed of on 10.02.2005 with the following observation and direction:
" In the facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. If it comes to the notice of the petitioners that any person whose name is appearing below the name of the petitioners in the merit list has been appointed they may bring the same to the notice of the appropriate authority."
5. The petitioners filed representation but the same was 2. not considered and the same was rejected on the ground that no person below the petitioner has been appointed. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court again challenging the said rejection order.
6. Mr. P.K.Mukhopadhyay, appears for the petitioner and submits that the petitioners are home guard and that has not been taken into consideration by the respondent-authorities and persons obtained less marks than the petitioners in category of homeguard has been given appointment and the petitioners have been denied.
7. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.
8. Mr. Rohit Sinha, J.C. to S.C. IV submits that earlier the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court and the case of the petitioners has been considered and also in view of the fact that no person having less marks than the petitioners have been considered or given appointment.
9. Mr. Rohit Sinha, J.C. to S.C. IV draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph No.11 which is quoted hereunder:
" That it is humbly stated and submitted that from perusal of the relevant procedure of the selection process, it is found that the name of the petitioner No.1 appeared in the merit list and he obtained only 15 points (08 points for height and 07 points for educational qualification) under General Non Home Guard Category. According to the merit list his height was found 170 cm and his educational qualification is intermediate in his category that is General Non Home Guard Category is 19 points. Hence, the case of the petitioner No.1 was not considered for appointment."
10. As regards consideration of the case in home guard category it has been specifically stated in paragraph No.16 of the counter-affidavit that both the petitioners have not submitted Home Guard certificates along with the application form, as because Home Guard Training Certificate issued to the petitioners on 24.11.2004 and the last date of submission of application form was 15.02.2004. Hence both are not eligible to be considered under the Home Guard category.
11. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in not appointing the petitioners on the post of constable. It is admitted fact that petitioners are not members of the home guard. Merely registration as home guard does not conform any right to be 3. considered for home guard category and also in view of the fact that petitioners have obtained less marks than the persons who have been appointed as mentioned in the writ application and also in view of the fact that now the appointments are being done by the Staff Selection and appointment of advertisement No.1/04 has been stopped in the year 2010 itself. No appointments have been done from the advertisement No.1/2004 after 2010 in view of the policy of the Government.
12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, the writ petition stands dismissed.
[Dr.S.N.Pathak,J.] P.K.S.