PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) These batch of writ petitions, on the similitude of the issue, have been preferred by the petitioners, who have, inter alia, prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the revised result of different posts pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.08.2009 and for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders passed by the respondents pertaining to removal from their services in purported exercise of power under Rule 668 (a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual and further prayer for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner after quashing the order of removal alongwith the consequential service benefits.
(2.) Sans details, the factual exposition, as delineated in the aforesaid writ applications is that the advertisement has been published in the local newspaper inviting applications from eligible candidates bearing Advertisement No. 01/2008 for appointment of Sub -Inspector/Sergeant and Company Commander. Clause 7 of the Advertisement stipulates that the candidates opting for Sub -Inspector/Sergeant and Company Commander has to indicate their preference. Clause 9 lays down the physical eligibility criteria for the posts, whereby for the post of S.I. and Company Commandant, the physical eligibility criteria was the same while the physical eligibility criteria for Sergeant was more rigorous. Clause 13 of the Advertisement stipulates that inter se seniority of two candidates having scored same marks shall be decided on the basis of their performance in written examination. The petitioners have been issued admit card in which their preference have been mentioned for the post of Sub -Inspector, Company Commander and Sergeant. Petitioners as per their preference and on the basis of their performances were selected and appointed in different category pursuant to the Advertisement. In pursuance to selection, the petitioners have been offered the appointments in different posts. It has been stipulated in the appointment letter that the petitioners will be sent for training for one year, which may be extended or curtailed. It has further been submitted that the petitioners shall be on probation for two years and if their services are found unsatisfactory, they would be removed. It has further been submitted in the letter of appointment that if the petitioners were found engaged in any misconduct, their services can be terminated without any show cause notice and similarly, if they have furnished any wrong or misleading information, then also, their services shall be terminated. After the appointment of the petitioners on different posts, an enquiry has been conducted in relation to selection of the petitioners on the ground that the erstwhile Chairman of the Selection Committee, headed by the Director General of Police, had made selections on the basis of preference and not on merit. Thereafter, a decision has been taken to rectify the earlier select list and to revise the result. In view of the revision of the result, a direction has been issued to remove the petitioners from their services under different categories under Rule 668 of the Police Manual and to ensure compliance of the same. After publication of the revised result and decision to remove the petitioners, a show cause notice was served on the petitioners. The petitioners have been removed from their services in purported exercise of power under Rule 668 (Ka) of the Police Manual. In pursuance to the decision of the State Government, a Committee was constituted, headed by the Director General of Police to go into the entire aspect of the matter and come to the finding of any illegality or irregularity committed in the preparation of the merit list and also come out with a revised merit list. Since the Committee found certain lacuna in the preparation of the previous merit list by virtue of the revised merit list, 42 candidates including petitioners have been recommended to be removed from services and in their places, 43 persons including the respondents have been recommended to be appointed. The said recommendation has been carried out and the services of 42 such appointees have been terminated and consequently 43 persons have been appointed as per the revised merit list. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of termination, left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioners have preferred these writ applications invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.
(3.) Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, controverting the averments made in the writ applications. In the counter affidavit, it has been inter alia, stated that as per the Advertisement dated 08.08.2009, many candidates applied for the posts of Sub -Inspector, Company Commander and Sergeants. The eligible candidates appeared in the written and physical test. Accordingly, a merit list was prepared. Some of the candidates, who were not successful in the said selection, approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5609 of 2012 and batch of cases, alleging certain illegality and irregularity in the selection process and the merit list was not prepared in a proper manner due to lack of fairness, transparency and credibility. It was alleged in the said writ applications that the less meritorious persons have been given appointments while persons with higher marks have been left out. During pendency of the said writ applications, the State Government constituted a Committee headed by the Director General of Police to go into the entire aspect of the matter and come to the finding of any illegality and irregularity committed in the preparation of the merit list and also come out with a revised merit list. The Committee found certain lacuna in the preparation of the previous merit list. The enquiry was only regarding the selection process adopted by the authorities. The Report submitted by the Committee, which was duly approved by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, pointed out certain irregularities, whereby it came to light that the selection had been done solely on the basis of preference given to the respective candidates. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, in view of the report, recommended to the Government a fresh selection list based upon the merit -cum - preference. Thereafter, the Home Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 25.10.2013 has informed the Director General of Police, Jharkhand, about the State Government's decision regarding the said selection process. In the letter dated 25.10.2013, it has been observed that the selections were made by overlooking the set rules and procedures and selections were made on the basis of preference and not on the basis of merit. Selection Boards meeting had not been convened before publishing the final result and therefore, fresh selection was to be made on the basis of proper selection process. A revised merit list has been prepared by the fresh selection Board vide its meeting dated 23.12.2013, the following points were decided : - (a) Candidate to be selected on the basis of merit -cum -preference. (b) candidates should be appointed on the post as per the marks obtained by them in the selection list subject to passing of the physical test. (c) Candidates who have not given their preference in their application form but find place in the merit list, also to be included in the merit list and appointed as per the marks obtained by them. (d) Candidates securing equal marks than the candidates who have secured more marks in the written test, shall be placed above the others in the merit list. As per the above conditions of the preparation of the merit list, some candidates were appointed erroneously in different categories. Therefore, vide impugned order, the candidates, who had been selected on the basis of the erroneous selection process, in the revised merit list, they were not within the zone of consideration and after being given show cause notice and their replies being not found satisfactory, their services were terminated in terms of Rule 668 (ka) of the Police Manual. ;