The High Court at Ranchi dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment as Constable. The petitioner was among 932 candidates excluded from the selection list due to detected malpractices, per a prior Division Bench order. The Court distinguished cited precedents and denied the relief.
Writ petition dismissed and no relief granted to petitioner.
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. 5927 of 2008
----
Adhir Rai s/o Shri Angrej Rai r/o village Bansdih PO Naisankho PS Deori District Giridih Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Superintendent of Police PO & PS Giridih District Giridih
Respondents
---
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
For the Petitioners/Appellant: Mr.R.Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents Mr.R.K.Shahi, JC to AAG
Dated : 9th February, 2018
Heard Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Shahi, learned JC to AAG appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition relates to appointment of Constable in pursuance of Advertisement No.01/2004 issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment of Constables in the district of Hazaribagh, Koderma, Giridih and Chatra. Admittedly the petitioner although was initially in the list of successful candidates but was excluded from the said list, which comprised 932 candidates on account of malpractices having detected on inquiry in the matter of recruitment. The said issue came up before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P (S) No.1242/2006 and analogous cases.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2, wherein it has been stated that appointments were made excluding the petitioner as he is one of 932 candidates found to be beneficiaries of malpractices during selection. Mr.Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that a specific order has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P (S) No.1242/2006 and analogous cases, wherein it has been held:-
“Para 11(b): Respondents are directed to make appointment according to select/merit list of successful candidates declared successful in the four districts of the State, namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih against the advertised vacancies excluding 932 candidates identified by the Inquiry Officer and found to be beneficiaries of malpractices during the selection. Let the appointment of such candidates be made within two months”.
As such, all the names of 932 candidates were excluded from the list of successful candidates and the name of the petitioner was in the list of 932 candidates.
4. Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the averments made in para 18 to 23 in the writ petition have not been controverted in the counter affidavit and thus, the averments made therein have to be construed to have been accepted by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has referred to the decision rendered in W.P (S) No.1844/2009 (Tikait Mistry Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and W.P (S) No. 4829/2007 (Namo Narayan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.).
The facts of the present case is not the same as that of the cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner and as such, the decisions referred to are of no help to the petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the affidavits and the decision of the Division Bench directing the respondents to exclude 932 candidates from the list of successful candidates and having considered the fact that the petitioner is one of 932 candidates, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Accodingly this writ petition is dismissed.
(Pramath Patnaik,J.)
dey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed in light of the petitioner inclusion in the list of candidates excluded due to malpractice.
Whether the decision in W.P (S) No. 1844/2009 and W.P (S) No. 4829/2007 are applicable to the present facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P (S) No.1242/2006Referred¶13
Tikait Mistry Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.Distinguished¶17
W.P (S) No.1844/2009 (Tikait Mistry Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.)
Namo Narayan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.Distinguished¶17
W.P (S) No. 4829/2007 (Namo Narayan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.)
Adhir Rai
The State of Jharkhand
Superintendent of Police
Pramath Patnaik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
