Juel Topno vs State of Jharkhand

Pramath Patnaik, J

In the aforesaid writ petition, the prayer has been made for appointment on the post of District Constable in pursuance to Advertisement no.3 of

2007.

The averments, as disclosed in the writ petition is that in pursuance to Advertisement No.3 of 2007 for the post of District Constable, the petitioner

appeared in the exam. Being aggrieved by non-appointment to the said post, the petitioner submitted representation vide Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ

petition. Since the said representation did not evoke any response, the petitioner left with no alternative, has been constrained to knock the doors of

this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been

submitted that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable in pursuance to Advertisement No.03 of 2007 by the selection board and his name

appears in the merit list. Accordingly, he was called upon for final selection along with the original and Xerox copies of relevant documents. In course

of verification it has been found that the height of the petitioner is 10 cms. lesser than the height mentioned in the master chart. The petitioner is a

Scheduled Tribe candidate under Non-Homeguard category and the cut off height under this category is 173.1 cms. which is much above than the

height of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that a list of 147 successful candidates was sent to the respondent no.3 by the Constable

Selection Board out of which 92 candidates have been appointed, 54 candidates remained absent from verification and one candidate namely, the

petitioner could not be appointed due to irregularity. The respondent no.3 informed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chhotanagpur

Range, Hazaribagh-cum- the Chairman, Constable Selection Board about the aforesaid matter, which is evident from Annexure-A to the counter

affidavit.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the

petitioner in view of the categorical statement made in the counter affidavit that during verification of the records petitioner did not have the required

height, which was less than the height meant for the Scheduled Tribe candidate (Non-Homeguard category). Therefore, there is absolutely no

infirmity or illegality on the part of the respondents not to give appointment to the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

any merit.