D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a writ of mandamus to issue forthwith the appointment letter to the petitioner in terms of Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 to the post of constable.
(2.) THE grounds on which the prayer has been made are that the petitioner is a Home Guard Trained Personnel and possesses all requisite qualifications and he was selected for the post of Constable after having qualified in all the test prescribed, including the Physical standards of height and chest measurements and there is no justifiable reason for denying the appointment to the petitioner when other candidates including one Raj Kumar Prasad, who does not even possess the Home Guard Training Certificate, has been given the appointment. The petitioner's case in brief is that an advertisement vide Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 was issued by the Respondents -authorities for filling up the vacant posts of constables in all the 22 districts within the State of Jharkhand. 50 per cent reservation was stipulated for candidates, who possess Home Guard Training Certificate. The petitioner applied for the post in the prescribed format annexing all the requisite documents including the School Leaving Certificate (Date of Birth Certiacate), Residential Certificate and Home Guard Training Certificate for his appointment to the post in the district of Koderma. The petitioner appeared for his physical Test and was declared qualified. Yet, when the final results were published on 9.12.2002, his name was not mentioned in the list of selected candidates. On enquiry, he was informed that the registration number of his Home Guards Training Certificate was not entered in the Master Roll and therefore his appointment letter was not issued. The petitioner's further contention is that the duty of making entries in the Master Roll is that of the Sergeant Major and of the petitioner and because of the latches/lapses of the Sergeant Major, the petitioner could not have been penalized. The petitioner asserts that he has been discriminated in the matter of appointment as because one Raj Kumar Prasad, who had also appeared along with the petitioner at the physical and other Tests, has been given the letter of appointment under the Home Guard Reservation Category although to the knowledge of the petitioner, he does not possess the Home Guard Training Certificate and further, even though the height measurements of the said Raj Kumar Prasad and another candidate, namely, one Bijay Yadav both of whom have been selected for their appointment in the district of Koderma, is much lesser then the height of the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been denied the appointment. Reierring to the copy of the application (Annexure -C), the petitioner submits that in his application he has categorically mentioned the fact that he possesses the Home Guard Training Certificate under Registration Number 17855 and has also annexed the copy of the Home Guard's Training Certificate. The petitioner asserts that when such declaration was made by the petitioner in his application, it was incumbent upon the Respondents -authorities to consider the petitioner's candidature under the same category and to make the corresponding entries in the Master Roll.
(3.) COUNTER -affidavit has been field on behalf of the respondents. While denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner had submitted his candidature by applying in the prescribed format under the Home Guard category. In Column 10 of the application, he had also stated that he is a member of the 'Ranchi District Home Guard's Association', bearing Registration No. 17855 but he had not annexed the copy of the Home Guard Certificate along with other testimonials as required of him and in absence of the Home Guard's Training Certificate, no entry was made in the corresponding column in the Master Chart affirming that the petitioner possesses the Home Guard Training Certificate. Learned Counsel for the respondents by referring to the Master Chart (Annexure -D) would explain that Column 5 of the Master Chart, which relates to the Home Guard's Registration Certificate and the District, has been shown blank and the petitioner who had put his signature in Column 14 of the Master Chart at the time when the same was prepared, did not raise any objections thereto, whatsoever. Furthermore, even as admitted by the petitioner that he came to know about the absence of the entry made in the Master Chart, he did not file any representation for the necessary correction in the Master Chart.;