Turam Munduiya vs State of Jharkhand

Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner on the post of

constable in pursuance to Advertisement No. 1/04, in which, he was declared successful.

The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to advertisement inviting application for appointment on the post of Constable, the petitioner applied and appeared

in the examination, in which, he was declared successful in the category of Non-Home Guards. But to the utter surprise, the petitioner was not called

for to appear for the physical/medical test and the candidates below in the merit list were called for such tests. Being aggrieved, the petitioner

represented before the respondents-authorities but it did not evoke any response, which compelled the petitioner to knock the door of this Court for

redressal of his grievances.

Repudiating the claim of the petitioner, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been

stated that mere inclusion of name of the petitioner in the merit list does not give any indefeasible right to the petitioner to claim appointment. Even

otherwise, the merit list was prepared taking into consideration all aspects relating to applications, roll numbers, name of the candidates etc. and only

those candidates were called for, who were found eligible. It has further been averred that after scrutiny of all documents the Selection Board found

that the petitioner though declared himself matriculate passed but on verification he was found to have failed in matriculation as such he was declared

unsuccessful vide memo dated 15.08.2005.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that wrong and incorrect statement has been made by the respondents stating

that the petitioner has furnished wrong information in the application form that ‘he is matriculate but he failed in the matriculation examination’

and the same would be crystal clear from the application form that is in custody of the respondents. Even otherwise also, the minimum qualification for

the post in question that has been mentioned in the Advertisement is ‘7th pass’ and not matriculate; hence the petitioner cannot be said to be

ineligible for the post in question.

After bestowing my anxious consideration to the pleadings available on record, it is admitted fact that initially the name of the petitioner was found

in the merit list, but mere inclusion of name in the merit list does not ipso fact entitle the petitioner to get appointment. View of this Court gets fortified

by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India as reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 wherein the

Hon’ble Court has held that inclusion of name in the merit list does not give any indefeasible right to be appointed. The respondents-authorities

later on vide order dated 15.08.2005 denied appointment to the petitioner along with some other persons, who were declared successful but were

denied appointment, wherein at column no. 3, the ground for denial of the petitioner has been mentioned as ‘the petitioner declared himself as having

passed the matriculation examination but on verification he was found to have failed in matriculation’. Petitioner, by way of filing rejoinder to

counter affidavit refuted such ground and stated that it is a wrong statement. Here, it would be apt to mention that even after filing of supplementary

counter affidavit the petitioner has never challenged order dated 15.08.2005 and mere disputing such things would not suffice. Even otherwise also,

the writ Court is not supposed to go into such disputed question of fact and by this time about one and half decade has lapsed. Hence, at such belated

stage of time, no relief could be granted to the petitioner.

Be that as it may be, this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact. Moreover, it is no more res integra that the disputed question of facts

regarding veracity or genuineness of a document cannot be effectually adjudicated by the Writ Court. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in the writ

application is thoroughly misconceived, illegal and unsustainable.

View of the Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation

Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the writ application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.