RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

LAWS(JHAR)-2008-12-39

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND

Decided on December 05,2008

RAM SINGH Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) : The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: i) For issuance of a writ of Mandamus or in nature thereof commanding/directing the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable in the district of Giridih in pursuance of Selection made, result of selected candidates published and general direction given by Honble High Court vide Judgement dated 10.11.2006 passed in W.P{.(S) No. 1242/2006 and analogous. ii)For issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding/ directing the Respondent not to exclude the petitioner from appointment on the ground of short height, which was illegally, malafidely and arbitrarily recorded one centimeter short than required, whereas in earlier selection process he was found to be of required height of 179.5 c.m. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue came up for consideration before this Honble Court in W.P.(S) No. 1242/2006 and by a detailed common judgement the Division Bench of this Honble Court vide its order dated 10.11.2006 dealt with the district of Giridih at paragraph -7, which starts at page 19 bottom and the relief figure has been given at page -20. The contention of the petitioner is that altogether 607 posts were sanctioned for the district of Giridih for appointment to the post of Constable out of which with regard to 346 candidates several irregularities of various natures were found and affirmed by the Honble High Court. The petitioners name does not fall in those lists instead his name was in the list of successful candidates who were not found to be irregularly appointed. In compliance to the direction issued by the Honble High Court to complete the process of selection the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, issued letter dated 4.4.2007 to the petitioner for presenting himself on 6.4.2007 with all his testimonials and certificates and for physical fitness/ verification. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondent even though he gave reminders on 12.4.2007 but nothing happened. Being aggrieved was constrained to prefer this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus and other reliefs as indicated in paragraph -1 of the writ petition. In the counter -affidavit filed by Respondent No. 4, a statement has been made at paragraph -7 that the petitioner Ram Singh, whose Roll No. is 4723 appear in pursuance to Call Letter No. 1104/R Ka, dated 4.4.2007 and his height and chest measurement was done by Medical Board and upon measurement his height was found to be 178.5 c.m. which was 1 c.m. less than the height found during earlier measurement and it was the sole ground on which they had chosen not to appoint the petitioner. It will be evident that in their affidavit it is mentioned that the measurement and the record is maintained by them i.e. the Medical Board and the authorities thereto. Assuming but not admitting that 1 c.m. was less or not, it will be the default of the authorities and they cannot take the benefit of their own default and it can by no stretch of imagination attributable to the petitioner to make it a ground to reject his appointment. The fact remains that even otherwise he was having a very good height because the minimum measurement criteria is only 160 cm. The counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents also admits that there is no problem of vacancy which in any case has to be filled up in view of the 346 candidates having been removed due to irregularities. The only thing which remains for consideration is the minimum age required for which he prays for condonation/relaxation. Considering the aforesaid facts even though there is no order impugned but by taking the statement made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit which is the basis for not considering the same is arbitrary and illegal and even otherwise it is illegal as no opportunity or show cause was given although the order was punitive in nature. The respondents have illegally taken away the legal, accrued and vested right and thus it is for the authorities to consider and relax the age bar of the petitioner since because of their own mistake and default he was deprived of his appointment. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, this writ petition is allowed in terms of its prayer, without any order as to costs.;

Click here to view full judgement.