SAMPAT KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred against an order passed by respondent no. 5 dated 3rd May, 2008 at Annexure -4 to the memo of the present petition, whereby the whole candidature of the present petitioner for the post of Police Constable has been dismissed/cancelled only on the alleged ground that the petitioner has not signed one form.

(2.) IT is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason given in the impugned order at Annexure -4 is not tenable in law for rejection of the candidature of the present petitioner. In fact, petitioner has appeared in the written test and has cleared the written test. Thereafter physical test was also taken which has been successfully cleared by the petitioner and he was called for, as per Annexure -3, medical check -up which was also in favour of the present petitioner. Thereafter, only on the ground that the application was left out unsigned by the petitioner, the whole candidature of the petitioner was cancelled/dismissed by the impugned order at Annexure -4 dated 3rd May, 2008. In fact, the application form of the present petitioner is also affixed by latest photograph of the petitioner, does not show that there is impersonation or petitioner has not cleared required screening tests. Thus, from the photograph, the respondent could have matched the petitioner as well as the name of the petitioner and the order at Annexure -4 could have been avoided and therefore, the order at Annexure -4 to the memo of the present petition deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) IN view of these submissions and looking to an order passed at Annexure -4 by respondent no. 5 dated 3rd May, 2008, it appears that the reason given for cancellation/dismissal of the application form or candidature of the present petitioner is not a valid or genuine reason, especially when petitioner was allowed to appear in written test, upon clearance of this test, he was further allowed to appear in physical test which is also cleared by the petitioner. I therefore, quash and set aside the said order. The reason given in the impugned order is not a legal and valid reason. In the application form, there is photograph of the present petitioner. Respondents could have matched the photograph in application form with present petitioner. Signature etc. is a procedure aspect. If there is any error in a procedure then that can be rectified even at a latter stage. It appears that the respondent has confused between the illegality and irregularity. Irregularity can always be regularized whereas illegality cannot be. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, at the highest, there can be an irregularity, which can be regularized even at a subsequent stage especially when the petitioner is allowed to appear in various tests. There is no allegation of the respondents about impersonation or non -clearance of the screening tests taken for the post of Constable. As the petitioner has already cleared written as well as physical test for the post of Constable, merely because a document not signed by the candidate, the candidature of the petitioner cannot be dismissed.