Ruplal Mahto v. 1. State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Project Bhawan, Ranchi 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A No. 209 of 2022 Ruplal Mahto ... ... ... Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Project Bhawan, Ranchi 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Ranchi 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Range, Hazaribag 4. Superintendent of Police, Koderma Respondents … … ... --------- CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --------- For the Appellant: For the Respondents: Mr. Navnit Toppo, AC to GP-I Mr. S.P Roy, Advocate 05/Dated: 06.04.2023 --------- Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per. Ananda Sen, J.)
Decision
ORDER 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is at the instance of the appellant challenging the judgment dated 21.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. Writ petitioner pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 applied for the post of Police Constable under OBC Category. As the petitioner qualified all the tests, he was selected by letter dated 4.4.2007 and he was directed to appear before the appropriate authority, Police Centre Koderma with all his testimonials for verification and for re-measurement of the height and medical examination. Petitioner was shocked as he did not find his name in the final selection merit list. As per the petitioner, he came to know that there was discrepancy in the measurement of the height of the petitioner as he was earlier measured 173.5 cm but on the final measurement his measurement was recorded as 170.7 cm, thus he was not appointed. Petitioner filed writ application being W.P(S) No. 1441 of 2016 claiming that his case is covered by the judgment of Brahmdeo Kumar Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P(S) No 6628 of 2010, -2- which in turn was allowed in terms of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ramlal Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2013 (1) JLJR 31. Learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioner dismissed the writ application on 21.12.2021 on the ground that there was inordinate delay, by the petitioner, in approaching the court and also as the appointment process has been completed and there is no vacant post. 3. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Brahmdeo Kumar (Supra). The case of Brahmdeo Kumar (Supra) was considered and final order was passed on 25.04.2018, when admittedly this instant writ application was still pending. As per the learned Counsel the same relief should have given to the petitioner as has been granted to Brahmdeo Kumar. It cannot be said that the petitioner was a fence sitter. He also submits that case of Brahmdeo Kumar (Supra) was considered by the authority and thereafter he was appointed which suggests that there exists vacant post. 4. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits that the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2016 whereas Brahmdeo Kumar had approached this Court in the year 2010, which clearly suggests that there is delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. He further submits that he is not aware as to whether the case of Brahmdeo Kumar (Supra) was considered and he was appointed. 5. 6. After hearing the parties, we find that the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2016 and admittedly on the said date the writ petition filed by Brahmdeo Kumar was pending before this Court. The final order in the case of Brahmdeo Kumar (Supra) was passed only on 25.4.2018. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner was a fence sitter and had filed writ application after the order was passed in the case of Brahmdeo Kumar (Supra). 6. 7. From the impugned order, we find that the case of the -3- petitioner for appointment was not considered by the department on the ground that initially his height was measured as 173.5 cm and finally on measurement his height was measured as 170.7 cm, thus there is a discrepancy. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the qualifying minimum height of the candidate is 160 cm, thus it hardly makes any difference whether the petitioner was measured 173.5cm or later on 170.7 cm as both the measurement are much above the prescribed minimum height. 7. 8. The facts that the minimum height for the District Police Force is 160 cm in the category of general class and backward class is admitted, which is apparent from the advertisement itself, which is Anneuxre-1 to the writ application. Thus the fact that petitioner was measured 170.7cm at the final stage cannot be a ground to disqualify him. Admittedly, the petitioner was measured by the respondents themselves on both the occasions thus if any error had occurred it was on the part of the respondents, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. Admittedly when the height of the petitioner was more than the minimum required height, he should have been considered for appointment, if he was otherwise eligible and if the last candidate selected is of height of 170.7cm or below. 8. 9. Thus considering what has been held above, we find that the case of this petitioner is covered by the order passed in the case of Brahmdeo Kumar Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P(S) No. 6628 of 2010. 10. The impugned order passed in writ petition is thus set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Police Constable if he is otherwise qualified in view of the decision rendered in the case of Ramlal Jha (Supra) & in the case of Brahmdeo Kumar (Supra) within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner. -4- 11. Accordingly, the instant Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2021 is set aside. 12. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 13. No orders as to costs. 14. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) N.A.F.R. Anjali/-