- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dated 28 th April, 2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1579 of 2011, whereby the writ petition of the writ petitioner has been dismissed.
(3.) It will be appropriate to give facts in brief: Because of some dispute with respect to selection of the candidates for the post of 'Constable' in four districts; Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih, the matter came up before this Court (Division Bench) in W.P.(S) No. 1242 of 2006 (Krishnaji & Others Vs. The State of Jharkahnd & Ors.) along with connected writ petitions. Before this Court, the enquiry report was submitted whereby 932 candidates were found to manipulate in the process of selection and got the selection. Finding this position, entire selection process was since cancelled. But when matter came up before this Court in above writ petitions i.e., in W.P.(S) No. 1242 of 2006 (Krishnaji & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) along with connected writ petitions, this Court directed the respondents to make appointment according to select/merit list of the successful candidates declared successful in four districts namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih excluding 932 candidates identified by the inquiry officer. This Court also directed to initiate enquiry against some of the persons who may have been involved in the malpractices. The petitioner could not get the appointment in spite of the fact that he was not in the list of 932 candidates whose candidature was stand reject finally by the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Krishnaji & Others. The petitioner since was not given appointment, therefore, petitioner again preferred one writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4153 of 2007, wherein the petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation before the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh and Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh was directed to decide the representation of the writ petitioner within eight weeks. The petitioner submitted his representation which was considered and decided by order dated 29 th September, 2007 and it was observed in the order that petitioner has shown his height as 173 c.m in the "Application Form". However, at the time of actual verification of his height, his height was found 172 c.m. It was further observed that in the 'Master Chart' inadvertently his height was recorded as 181.5 and because of that reason his marks has been increased and he was shown as selected candidate.;