Two writ petitions praying for appointment as police constables were dismissed. The court held that petitioners, found among candidates involved in malpractice, have no valid claim despite appearing in merit lists.
Direction to consider case for appointment refused; writ applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3040 of 2010
Sanjeev Kumar, Son of Sri Umesh Singh, Resident of Village Kashimpur Badki, P.O and P.S. Athmal Gola, Distrit-Patna (Bihar)
... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh, P.O & P.S. Hazaribagh Sadar,
4.Superintendent of Police-cum-,Chairman Selection BoardHazaribagh, P.O & P.S. Hazaribagh Sadar. Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 2308 of 2011
Rakesh Kumar, son of Late Raj Kishore Prasad Singh, resident of village – Nehalpur, P.O – Neori, P.S.Behalganj, District – Gaya, Bihar. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, P.O & P.S. - Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3.Deputy Inspector General of Police, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
4.Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman Selection Board, Giridih. .... Respondents
-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Adv. For Respondents : A.C to A.G (in WPS No. 3040/10) : Mr. Raunaq Sahay, A.C (Mines) (in WPS No. 2308 of 2011)
------ 11 / Dated: 16th February, 2018 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
Common issues are involved in both these writ petitions, hence they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In the captioned writ applications, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider their case for appointment on the post of police constable, as they come within the zone of consideration having qualified all events and declared successful.
of some dispute with respect to selection of the candidates for
the post of 'Constable' in four districts; Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih; the matter was inquired into and report was prepared wherein 932 candidates were found to be beneficiaries of malpractices by making over-writing etc. in master chart and petitioners name find place in those 932 candidates; hence, they have rightly been denied appointment. It has further been submitted that denial of appointment of those 932 candidates, who have applied for the posts of constable vide advertisement no. 01/2004 being the beneficiaries of malpractice; has also been upheld by the decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. 4. On perusal of the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:
(I).Admittedly, the petitioners were found beneficiaries of malpractices among the 932 candidates, though the manipulation was detected at later stage, but, it is settled principle of law that fraud vitiates everything and so far as fraud in appointment is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others as reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 has at paragraph nos. 13 as under:-
In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley the Court observed without equivocation that: (QB p. 712)
“… No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything.”
Hence, the manipulation/interpolation though detected at a later stage, the petitioners cannot be given benefit of manipulation.
(ii).Furthermore, it is a settled principles of law that inclusion of name in the merit list does not give any indefeasible right to appointment as enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India as reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 .
5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I am of the opinion that the writ applications do not warrant any interference by this Court and the same are accordingly dismissed, being devoid of any merit.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.)
Alankar/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to grant appointment to petitioners found involved in malpractice in police constable recruitment.
Whether inclusion of name in merit list confers indefeasible right to appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & OthersFollowed¶27
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others (2013) 9 SCC 363 · Who else cites this
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. JagannathReferred¶27
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. BeasleyReferred¶29
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶32
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 · Who else cites this
Sanjeev Kumar
Rakesh Kumar
State of Jharkhand
Director General of Police, Jharkhand
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh
Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman Selection Board
Pramath Patnaik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
