LAXMAN SAH vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

In the instant writ application, the petitioner calls in question the decision of the respondent No. 7 vide Memo dated-28.04.2009 (Annexure-9) for

non-selection of the petitioner to the post of the Police Constable and further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding

upon the respondents to make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable forthwith in pursuance to the selection. Â

The brief facts, as has been depicted in the writ application are that in pursuance to the Advertisement published in the year 2004, bearing

Advertisement No. 01/2004, the petitioner applied for the post of Police Constable and the petitioner was declared as successful candidate under the

category of Home Guard from Sahebganj district and his Roll No. has figured at Serial No. 52 of the select list vide Annexure-3 to the writ

application. Though the name of the petitioner has figured in the select list but inadvertently, the name of the petitioner was shown as Matric pass

candidate but the petitioner is a non-matric and due to such mistake, the petitioner could not be appointed. Being aggrieved by the nonappointment, the

petitioner appeared before the Respondent No. 5 by filing application, ventilating his grievances. On receipt of such grievance petition, the respondent

no. 5 directed the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh-cum-President of the Selection Committee Board vide Memo dated-

01.05.2008 to appoint the petitioner on the post of the Police Constable, as evident from Annexure-5 of the writ petition. In pursuance to the direction

of Respondent No. 5, a Call letter was issued upon the petitioner vide Memo dated-13.08.2008 under the signature of the Respondent No. 7 and

thereafter, the petitioner appeared on 27.09.2008 and filed an application for appointment before the respondent No. 7. Due to discrepancy in the

address in the application form and subsequent production of residential certificate, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner

submitted his reply explaining the reasons for giving two addresses but to the utter surprise, the respondent no. 7 took an unilateral decision not to

appoint the petitioner on the post of the Police Constable vide Memo dated-28.04.2009 vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the

aforesaid decision of the Respondent No. 7, the petitioner left with no alternative has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that non-appointment of the petitioner on the post of the Police Constable in spite

of due selection amounts to illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the action of

the respondents in not appointing the petitioner after due selection, amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, it has been submitted that

the application of the petitioner and the record of his candidature was examined by the authorities. The Caste Certificate and the Residential

Certificate were showing his residence as VillageChajora, P.S.-Thakur Ghanti, District-Godda, which was different from his permanent address and

postal address given by the petitioner in the application. Moreover, the certificate shows that the petitioner belongs to the backward Class and Home

Guard Category. The Certificate showing that he was Home Guard Trained was not signed by the issuing authority, rather, it was signed by One

Inspector. This fact was examined by the then Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh and in reply to that, the Commandant, Central

Training Institute, Jharkhand Home Guard, Dhurwa, Ranchi in his Memo dated 03.11.2008 intimated to the then Commandant, Jharkhand Armed

Police-7, Hazaribagh, whereby he accepted that the petitioner had taken basic training from the aforesaid Home Guard Training Institute. After

considering the Caste Certificate, Residential Certificate and the Permanent and the postal address mentioned in the application of the petitioner, the

then Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-7, Hazaribagh in view of the prima facie difference in both of them, cancelled the candidature of the

Petitioner, passing the Memo dated 28.04.2009 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which is also impugned in the writ application.

A supplementary counter affidavit dated 03.01.2018, has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7, wherein, it has been submitted that the

selection process has been declared time barred by the Director Generalcum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand vide Memo dated 18.08.2010,

directing therein, that no selection will be made from the merit list prepared against the Advertisement No. 01/2004, as because, it is time-barred as

per Annexure-A to the said affidavit. It has further been submitted that normal selection process against the Advertisement No.01/2004 was over in

the year 2007 itself.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-State apartfrom reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the action of the

respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner to the post of the Constable cannot be construed to be illegal in view of the fact that there was

discrepancy in the address given in the application form and the address given in the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of selection had

a number of marked relevant dissimilarities, because of which his candidature was cancelled.Â

Having given my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the

impugned decision, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition due to the following facts and reasons : -

(i) Though the petitioner was a selected candidate for the post of Constable pertaining to Advertisement No. 01/2004, but because of certain

discrepancies/dis-similarities in the address of the petitioner, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled and the decision was taken not to give

appointment to the petitioner on the post in question. Moreover, the selection to the aforesaid post was over in the year 2007 itself and in the

meanwhile, from the year of advertisement, more than 13 years have elapsed and in the meantime, the decision has been taken in the year 2010 as per

Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit that no further selection can be made from the merit list, since it is already timebarred.

(ii) It is no more res integra that inclusion of the name in the select list does not give any indefeasible right for appointment. In the case in hand, since,

because of the follies of the petitioner, his candidature for selection to the post of the Constable was cancelled, the petitioner is not entitled to be

shown any mercy or leniency in case of public employment, if he is found to be involved in committing mistakes in furnishing correct address.

In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order vide Memo dated-28.04.2009

(Annexure-9) passed by the respondent No. 7.

Resultantly, the writ petition, is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.