D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) BY this common order, both these writ applications are disposed of since issues involved are identical.
(2.) IN both these writ petitions, prayer of the petitioners is for quashing the orders of the Superintendent of Police. Koderma (respondent No. 4), whereby the petitioners were informed that the Selection Committee has cancelled their candidature for their appointment on the post of police constable for which the petitioners had applied pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/04 dated 13.1.2004. Both the petitioners had applied for and were issued Admit Cards bearing roll Nos. 5431 and 2827. They appeared at the selection test including the written test and physical test and were declared successful. However, by order dated 10.12.2005 issued by the D.G. Police. Jharkhand, the selection of candidates in respect of four districts namely, Hazaribagh, Giridih, Koderma and Chatra were cancelled on the allegation of large scale malpractices. The aforesaid order of cancellation was quashed by the High Court vide order dated 10.11.2006 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7236 of 2005 along with analogous cases with a direction to the respondents to make appointment according to the select/merit list of successful candidates declared successful in the four districts of Hazaribagh, Koderma, Koderma and Chatra, excluding 932 candidates identified by the inquiry officer who were found to be beneficiaries of malpractices during the selection process. The petitioners did not figure in the list of 932 candidates. A fresh result was published by the respondents in the newspaper on 31.3.2007 indicating against the roll number of the petitioners that the matter was pending. Later, re -physical examination was held on 16.3.2006 in which the petitioners were allowed to appear and they were declared successful.
(3.) DR . S.N. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(S) No. 5906/07 and Mr. Delip Jenith, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(S) No. 0041/07 commonly submit that the petitioners' claim is on the basis of the results of the second selection process in which the petitioners had participated and were declared successful. The petitioners categorically assert that they do not fall within the list of 932 candidates who were identified and declared as beneficiaries of malpractices and as such, they should have been appointed as per the direction of the High Court passed in the earlier writ application. Learned Counsel argue further that by the cancellation of their candidature, petitioners have been arbitrarily denied their right of being appointed to the post of constable even without issuing any show -cause notice and without giving any cogent reason. Such act of the respondents is totally against the principles of natural justice and has been deprecated in several judgments of the Supreme Court as also by this court. Learned Counsel refer in this context to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. Stale of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 330 and to the judgment of this Court in the case of Namo Narayun Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. passed in W.P.(S) No. 4829 of 2007.;