- (1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe candidate and has applied for the post of Constable in pursuance of the public advertisement, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition. The petitioner appeared in all the tests taken by the respondents and has been declared successful and despite these facts, the petitioner has not been appointed as a Police Constable and therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred.
(2.) COUNSEL for the State submitted that the petitioner has secured 14 marks in Scheduled Tribe Category candidate. Another Scheduled Tribe Category candidate have also secured equal marks and therefore, looking to the rules for recruitment whenever there are equal marks obtained by the similarly situated candidates then the candidate, who is older in age may be given employment. The date of birth of the petitioner is 19 th October, 1978 whereas, the selected candidate's date of birth is 24 th February, 1976. Thus, the another candidate has been appointed. So far as the allotment of 14 marks is concerned, it is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that 08 marks have been allotted for the height of the petitioner, which is measured at 170 cms. and 06 marks have been allotted for his matriculation examination. Thus, the petitioner has secured 08 plus 06 i.e. total 14 marks. Even as per the report submitted by the Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh, before this Court, the petitioner's height is also measured as 170 cms. Thus, the petitioner has correctly been given 14 marks and therefore, the petitioner cannot be appointed on the post of Constable. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly on the following facts and reasons: (I) The present petitioner has secured 14 marks and the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Category candidate. Similarly situated another candidate has also secured 14 marks. Looking to the rules of the recruitment whenever more than one candidates are securing same marks then whosoever older in age will be given employment. Petitioner's date of birth is 19 th October, 1978 whereas, the date of birth of another selected candidate is 24th February, 1976. Thus, there is no illegality committed upon the petitioner in not appointing the petitioner. (II) So far the height of the petitioner is concerned, looking to the report given by the Civil Surgeon, Hazaribagh in pursuance of the order, passed by this Court dated 29 th February, 2012, on 26th March, 2010, the height of the petitioner is 170 cms. Thus, correctly the marks have been allotted by the respondents for the height of the present petitioner as 08 marks and for his educational qualification 06 marks have been given. Thus, 08 plus 06 i.e. total 14 marks have been given to the petitioner which is also true and correct. In view of the above facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.;