- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners in this writ petition have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of police constable on the basis of the fact that they were declared successful in the examination and do come within the zone of consideration for their appointment
(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are as follows : In response to an advertisement No. 1 of 2004 issued by the State of Jharkhand inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Police constables, both the petitioners submitted their applications. They were issued roll no. 7644 and 7666 for their appearance at the prescribed test. Physical tests of the petitioners were conducted. While the petitioner no. 1 claims that his height was measured as 174.5 cm, petitioner no. 2 claims that his height was measured as 173 cm. Further claim of petitioner no.1 is that he had passed Intermediate of Arts, whereas petitioner no.2 claims to be a Postgraduate. The petitioners' grievance is that having been declared successful at the examination, the petitioners came within the zone of consideration, but no letter of appointment was issued to them. They submitted their representation before the Chairman, Selection Board, but the same was not considered and that the respondents have arbitrarily denied the appointment to the petitioners by adopting pick and choose method in the matter of appointment of constables and in fact, candidates of lesser height than the petitioners have been offered appointment.
(3.) DR . S.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that even as per the prescribed criteria for allotment of marks/points in respect of educational qualifications, candidates possessing higher educational qualification, above matriculation, were entitled for allotment of 7 marks. Yet, despite the fact that the petitioner no.1 had specifically stated his educational qualification in his application form, he was not awarded 7 marks for Intermediate qualification. Had the appropriate marks been allotted, the petitioner no.1 would have fetched higher marks in order of merit. Learned counsel adds further that pursuant to General Instructions issued by the DIG Police, all such candidates who could not submit certificates in proof of their educational qualification along with applications, were permitted to submit their certificates after the examination was conducted. The petitioner no.1 submitted his certificate of IA, but even then his case was not considered. Referring to a judgment rendered in WP(S) No. 266 of 2008 by a Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Sohail Khan, who was another candidate of the same panel, learned counsel submits that the facts of the case of the petitioners are identical to that of Md. Sohail khan and the petitioners also deserve re -consideration of their candidatures by the respondents in accordance with the direction contained in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Md. Sohail Khan.;