Nisha Lakra vs The State of Jharkhand

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner''s claim for appointment on the post of Brass Drummer in the Female Police Band under the respondent-Government of Jharkhand has been denied by the impugned order at Annexure-7 passed by the Jharkhand Female Police Band Council-cum-Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand Ranchi bearing Memo No. 408 dated 14.06.2013. The petitioner had earlier participated in the selection exercise conducted for the said post in Adv. No. 02/08. According to her, she was having equal marks to that of another candidate Anita Kumari, who also belongs to ST category. On the last occasion in W.P. (S) No. 5491 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner, the respondents were directed to dispose of her representation vide judgment dated 01.05.2013, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The said representation has now been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that though Anita Kumari and the present petitioner, both had equal 60 marks, but Anita Kumari was elder in age and her date of birth is 14.12.1988 as compared to the petitioner''s date of birth i.e. 17.05.1989, therefore, the said candidate was given preference in view of the circular dated 15.09.2003, Annexure-8 of the writ petition, issued by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand Ranchi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has relied upon the said circular Annexure-8 particularly clause-25 which deals with ''Breaking of tie''. According to him as per the criteria laid down in a state of tie, height being equal or marks being equal in between two candidates, date of birth is to be reckoned for selecting the elder candidate in age. In the present case, according to him, the petitioner was having the height of 161.6 c.m. while the other candidate had 154 c.m., therefore preference has to be given to the petitioner. The impugned order is, therefore, to be set aside. The petitioner deserves to be appointed on the post of Brass Drummer in the Female Police Band.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State while contesting the petitioner''s claim, has submitted that the circular dated 15.09.2003, which provides for breaking of tie, conceives of situation when marks of two candidates are equal; the reference to the height in the said clause is only by way of illustration and does not make any material difference as tie is only in cases of equal marks and is to be broken on yardstick applied uniformly. The yardstick laid down is the date of birth i.e. the elder candidate is entitled to be appointed. If the date of birth is same, person having higher qualification is to be appointed. Therefore, while considering the petitioner''s representation, the said yardstick has been applied. The petitioner younger in age, has been denied appointment.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. After having gone through the relevant records, impugned order and the circular dated 15.09.2003, the moot point to be considered as made out on behalf of the parties, is as to whether in the matter of breaking of tie, the difference of heights of two candidates are to be taken into account and the one, who is having more height is to be preferred for selection to the said post or not. Ordinarily tie happens in the eventuality of equal score either in any competition or recruitment in the selection process or even in the case of game. In the instant case as would appear from the yardstick, which has been followed for selection to the post of constable or such police personal in the department, if the incumbent candidates falls within the particular zone of height, she/he was entitled to secure a particular marks to be added to the point secured by the candidate in the educational qualification criteria. In the instant case admittedly though two candidates were having the different height but had secured equal marks under the criteria laid down vide circular dated 15.09.2003; therefore, the selection of candidate elder in age was to be made. If the date of birth is also same, the educational qualification of the candidates were the yardstick to be followed. The criteria laid down for appointment is in the executive domain and it is to be judged on the test of reasonableness whether it is arbitrary or not? It is to be followed uniformly for the persons similarly situated. In the instant case, the yardstick seems to have been applied in the reasonable and uniform manner. Therefore, the petitioner being younger in age has not been recommended for appointment in the selection process in a case of tie between her and Anita Kumari. Moreover, Anita Kumari has not been impleaded as party respondent in the instant writ petition. In the totality of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for interference is, therefore, made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.