Petitioners challenged exclusion from armourer police training selection. Expressing state's explanation regarding merit and clerical error, court rejected writ petition. No interference ordered.
Writ petition rejected; no direction issued.
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. 1497 OF 2010
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.The Inspector General of Police(Provision)Jharkhand,Ranchi
3 The Deputy Inspector General of Police Koyala Kshetra, Bokaro
4.The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-5 Deoghar, Jharkhand.
5.Sri. Manoj Kumar (Police No. 834 through te Commandant JAP-5 Bokaro P.O &P.S B.S.City,Dist.Bokaro.
6.Sri. Vijay KumAr Kumar (Police No. 741 through the Commandant JAP-5 Deoghar P.O &P.S Deoghar,Dist.Deoghar.
….. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : None
For the Respondents: Mrs. Chandra Prabha, S.CI
Order No.4 : Dated 5th August, 2019
On first call nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners and even, on second call nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mrs. Chandra Prabha, the learned counsel for the State-Respondents is present.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for selection in training of armourer police from the general police.
It is contended in the writ petition that altogether 39 police personnel have been selected as learner armourers but the authorities debarred the petitioner no. 1 from the selection of Armour police Training whereas the name of the petitioner no. 2 is enlisted in the said list at Serial No. 29 and the result
-2-
was published on 3.7.2009
Mrs. Chandra Prabha,learned counsel for the StateRespondents, while referring paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, submits that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, his name did not appear in the merit list published by the I.G( Provision) and he has got only 63 marks and was placed much below the last selected candidates in his category who had got 73.5 marks. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, it is stated that his name appeared in the merit list and had got 69.5 marks which was equal to the marks of last selected candidates in that category and due to clerical error he was placed in Scheduled Tribes category. As soon as the clerical mistake came to the knowledge ofthe authority concerned, it was corrected and the name of Constable Manoj Kumar was placed in that category.
In view of the statements made in the counter affidavit, no case is made out for interference in this writ petition. It is accordingly, rejected.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether deprivation of selection in police armourer training to petitioner No. 1 based on merit list and to petitioner No. 2 due to clerical error warrants interference.
Whether counter affidavit explaining lack of merit for petitioner No. 1 and clerical error for petitioner No. 2 negates case for writ intervention.
Nitya Nand Singh
Uday Ravidas
The State of Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
