The High Court · 2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) LPA No. 322 of 2019 1.Premi Soi @ Premi Say aged 42 years, D/o Sri John So, resident of village Chholagora, new Basti, PO and PS Parsudih, District East Singhbhum 2.Mahima Oraon, aged 42 years, S/o Sri Lola Oraon, resident of village Kamta, PO Murgu, PS Sisai, District Gumla 3.Mahli Bhagat, aged 46 years, S/o late Mahadeo Bhagat, resident of village Ataria, PO Fori, PS Gumla, District Gumla 4.Munshi Oraon, aged 46 years, S/o Bharwa Oraon, resident of village Guniajargatoli, PO Gunia, PS Ghagra, District Gumla 5.Shankar Oraon, aged 38 years, s/o Timru Oraon, resident of village Kumharia Dipatoli, PO Karonda, PS Gumla, District Gumla 6.Karma Tigga, aged 46 years, s/o Kamal Tigga, resident of village Kasitoli, PO Nawadih, PS Gumla, District Gumla 7.Samir Kumar Murmu, aged 40 years, s/o late Surju Murmu, resident of village Kharikasol, PO Edalbera, PS Ghatsila, District East Singhbhum 8.Mangra Kharia, aged 40 years, s/o Sri Aklu Kharia, resident of village Dilkara, PO Sogra, PO Sisai, District Gumla 9.Birsa oraon, aged 30 years, s/o late Suka Oraon, resident of Aatabagesh, Gadritoli, PO Mahadeo Chegri, PS Bharno, District Gumla ......Appellants Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO and PS Dhurwa, Ranchi 3.Director General of Police, PO &PS Dhurwa, Jharkhand, Ranchi 4.Superintendent of Police, PO and PS Bistupur, District Jamshedpur, Jharkhand 5.Superintendent of Police, (RAIL), PO and PS Bistupur, Jamshedpur, east Singbhum 6.Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, PO and PS Sahebganj ..... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellants For the State : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate : Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to GP-II ---------------
Decision
O R D E R 04th July 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Nine persons who were aspirants for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2003 approached the writ Court seeking a direction for their appointment. 2 LPA No. 322 of 2019 2. The writ Court having taken note of the statements made by the respondents in paragraph no. 18 of the counter-affidavit has dismissed WP(S) No.3838 of 2007 filed by them. Now the writ petitioners have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal seeking parity with Khelaram Mardi who according to them has obtained 13 marks equal to the marks obtained by them. 3. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, the learned counsel for seven of these appellants submits that there is a clear indication in the interim order passed by the writ Court that if the appellants have secured qualifying marks they can be appointed against the unfilled vacancies. 4. In the first place, we may indicate that this is the own calculation of the appellants that the said Khelaram Mardi has secured 13 marks. The respondents have disclosed that he has secured 14 marks and possesses the qualification of Intermediate. The respondents have further pleaded that Khelaram Mardi has qualified in the physical test and secured more marks than the aspirants who could secure only 13 marks. The writ Court has taken note of the statements made by the appellants which turned out to be false and thereby they were held not entitled to invoke discretionary jurisdiction of the writ Court. 5. In the order dated 7th February 2019 passed in WP(S) No. 3838 of 2007, the writ Court has held as under: “As per the pleadings, the petitioners have participated in the selection process for the post of constable in pursuance of Adv. No. 01/03. Under the selection process, petitioners have secured 13 marks. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the person having Roll No. 2185, who has secured 13 marks, below in the merit list has been appointed. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State wherein specific stand has been taken in para-18, which is quoted hereinunder: “18. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioners in paragraph-35, in the instant writ petition, it is humbly stated and submitted that is matter of record. It is pertinent to mention here that Khela Ram Mardi has not been appointed with 13 points whose Sl. No. was 136 and Roll No. 2185 but he has secured 14 points, his educational qualification is Inter, Height 167.6 & date of birth is 07.01.1976 and so he has been appointed as Constable. As such the petitioners have given false information to the Hon’ble High Court.” Thus, specific stand has been taken that the said Khela Ram Mardi has secured 14 points and not 13 points, as claimed by the petitioners and as such, no person having lesser marks than these petitioners have been appointed by the respondent authority. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ” 3 LPA No. 322 of 2019 6. The writ remedy is discretionary and in appropriate cases the writ Court can decline to exercise its power even though the applicant has an arguable case. Therefore there are certain judicially evolved limitations for exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one of which is that a person with spoiled hands must be shown the doors. 7. In “K.D. Sharma v. SAIL” (2008) 12 SCC 481 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.” 8. Having regard to the findings recorded by the writ Court and the aforesaid position in law, we are not inclined to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, LPA No. 322 of 2019 is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 04th July 2023 Tanuj/N.A.F.R