The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 395 of 2021 ------ Satyendra Singh, aged about 53 years, S/o Kapil Deo Singh, R/o village Hematpur, P.O. Manipura, P.S. Aara, District Bhojpur, State- Bihar … Versus Petitioner / Appellant ... 1. The State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Officiating from his office situated at Jharkhand Police Headquarters, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur and District Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur Division, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh 3. The Superintendent of Police, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh. 4. The Superintendent of Police, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma. 5. Police Selection Committee, through its Chairman, Superintendent of Police, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma. … … Respondents / Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellant For the Respondents -------- : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III : Mr. Ashwani Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III -------- Order No. 13 / Dated: 29th August, 2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appeal is under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)
Decision
No. 2434 of 2009, by which, while, dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge has refused to pass a direction regarding the appointment of the writ petitioner. 3. The main facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is required to be enumerated, which reads as under:- 3(i). The State Government published an advertisement bearing No. 01/2004 dated 13.01.2004 in daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ inviting -2- L.P.A. No. 395 of 2021 applications from the competent candidates to fill up the posts of constable in different districts of the State. The petitioner filled up the application from the district of Giridih and was allotted roll no. 7963. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared in written and physical examinations and he succeeded in all examinations. Subsequently, the State Government published a provisional list of 285 successful candidates on 18.02.2009, but the petitioner was surprised and shocked that his name did not appear in the said provisional list. 3(ii). Subsequently, the respondents published one paper bearing No. 803 containing the roll numbers of candidates showing the reasons as to why their candidature was rejected, which according to the petitioner is vague, inasmuch as, the column of other defects does not specify the reason as to what was the defect on the basis of which the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner gave representation to the Superintendent of Police, Koderma and sent a copy of the same to the other superior officer. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant / writ petitioner that this paper bearing No. 803 (Annexure-4) is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it appears that some malpractice has been committed by the petitioner with respect to his date of birth, which the petitioner specifically denies and dispute, inasmuch as, in the chart there is no overwriting rather there is a cutting and there is initial, as such it cannot be said that petitioner has done any mischief of malpractice. -3- L.P.A. No. 395 of 2021 5. Further attention of this Court was drawn towards his certificates which transpires his date of birth and submitted that the cutting was genuine and his date of birth was corrected. He contended that for the ends of justice, the respondent-State should have given notice before cancelling the candidature of each and every petitioner. 6. He further relied upon specific averment made in the writ application at para 9 and submits that the petitioner was a perfect candidate to be appointed and as such, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside, whereby the candidature of the writ petitioner has been rejected. 7. It appears from the factual aspect as pleaded in the writ petition as referred that in pursuance to the advertisement bearing advertisement No. 01/2004 dated 13.01.2004 applications were invited to fill up the post of Constable in different districts of the State. The appellant had filled up his application form and claimed to be declared successful but subsequent to such declaration and when some litigation was filed by the unsuccessful candidates by pointing out the unfairness and malpractices committed in the recruitment process the cases of all successful candidates were scrutinised by the respondent and based upon the same the list of 932 candidates have been prepared finding them guilty of malpractices for appointment. The appellant is one of the 932 candidates. 8. The grievance of the applicant that he had secured 11 (Eleven) points in the General Home Guard Category wherein the last selected candidate had obtained 6 (Six) points, hence, he was having more marks than the last selected candidate but even then not selected. 9. Thereafter, he has approached this Court by filing writ petition in -4- L.P.A. No. 395 of 2021 W.P.(S) No. 2434 of 2009. The said writ petition has been dismissed against which the present appeal. 10. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no fault on the part of the writ petitioner, since, he is not involved, in any way, in malpractices. 11. The submission has been made that there are some error in the muster roll, but the muster roll is to be kept by the authority concerned as prepared by them and hence, if any discrepancy is there with reference to the writ petitioner the same cannot come in the way of the appointment of the writ petitioner. But the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact. 12. On the other, has gone into the fact that the advertisement was of the year 2004. Since then the substantial period has lapsed, hence, the writ petition has been dismissed. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge without consideration of the aforesaid fact regarding attributability of committing unfairness said to be taken as a ground for non-appointment, since has not been considered, hence, the order passed the by the learned Single Judge suffers from error, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. While on the other hand Mr. Ashwani Bhushan, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge that while dismissing the writ petition if the ground has been taken that there cannot be any direction to fill up the vacancies, even if, vacancies are available then also the vacancies since was of the year 2004, hence, there cannot be any direction at the time of disposal of the writ petition i.e. in the year 2020-2021 by way of mandamus for issuance of the appointment letter. -5- L.P.A. No. 395 of 2021 14. Further, submission has been made on the ground that after 2004 so many selection process afresh had been initiated. The learned counsel coupled with the aforesaid ground has also taken the ground that the appellant is under the list of 932 candidates who were found guilty of malpractices for appointment. The said aspect of the matter has never been objected, therefore, once the appellant has accepted to be in the list of 932 candidates who were found guilty of malpractices for appointment, thereafter, it is not available for the writ petitioner to seek a direction for issuance of appointment without assailing the said list on the ground which is being taken herein. 15. Learned counsel for the State on the aforesaid premise has submitted that the learned Single Judge since has passed the order on the premise of the aforesaid background, the same suffers from no error. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 17. The admitted fact herein is that one advertisement was published bearing advertisement No. 01/2004 on 13.01.2004 inviting applications for filling up the post of Constable. The petitioner was one of the aspirants and had made application for consideration of his candidature for appointment under the General Home Guard category. The appellant claims to have obtained 11 points under the aforesaid category. 18. The grievance of the appellant is that under the General Home Guard category the last selected candidate had obtained 6 (six) points while the appellant had obtained 11 (Eleven) points, even then he has not been -6- L.P.A. No. 395 of 2021 selected and appointed. Hence, he had approached this Court by filing writ petition but the same has been dismissed by taking note of the fact that the advertisement was of the year 2004 and the recruitment process stands closed by the order of the Deputy Inspector General vide decision taken to that effect under memo No. 2026 dated 18.08.2010. 19. The learned Single Judge has also taken the ground that after such a delay there cannot be any direction for appointment. The learned Single Judge, however, has taken note of the fact as was placed on behalf of the State regarding the commission of malpractices in the recruitment process and based upon the order passed by this Court the entire selection process was again revisited and decision was taken not to consider the case of 932 candidates who have been identified by the enquiry officer keeping such candidates under the heading of "for other defects." 20. The admitted fact herein is, as per the pleading, that the issue of malpractices in the recruitment process was also one of the subject matter brought to the notice of this Court in another litigation. 21. The authorities of the State has conducted an enquiry and found 932 candidates involved in the commission of the aforesaid malpractices. The further admitted fact is that the appellant is also one amongst the 932 candidates. 22. The respondent on the aforesaid premise had not issued the appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner which occasioned the writ petitioner to file the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2434 of 2009. 23. This Court on consideration of the aforesaid fact and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge is of the view that the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed on the following grounds; (i) the appellant is amongst 932 candidates who have been -7- L.P.A. No. 395 of 2021 identified in commission of malpractices. (ii) the appellant admittedly has not objected the fact that he has been identified to be one of the candidates out of the 932 candidates who have been found guilty of malpractices for appointment. (iii) The appellant once accepted guilty of malpractices for appointment then the question is where is the occasion for the writ petitioner to seek a direction for issuance of writ. 24. If any candidate has been found to be involved in commission of malpractices for the purpose of public employment the law in this regard is said to be that the candidature of such candidate is to be cancelled at the threshold so as to maintain fairness and transparency in the public employment so as to achieve the object and purpose as under Article-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 25. Further admitted fact is that the appellant has never questioned rejection of the candidature by identifying him under 932 candidates. 26. The advertisement is of the year 2004 in which the Deputy Inspector General of Police has closed the selection process by taking decision vide memo No. 2026 dated 18.08.2010. 27. This Court on the basis of the aforesaid ground is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, needs no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 28. The pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) D.S./J.Minj (Navneet Kumar, J.)