Dismissed

Bimlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC22 Jul 2019WPC/2357/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-appointment of the petitioner under a 2% sports quota, alleging arbitrariness by the J.P.S.C. The court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory sports criteria and questioning the reservation quantum.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed without granting any appointment or directing the respondents to reconsider the case.

Bimlesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 2357 OF 2011

¶3

Bimlesh Kumar,son of Kamleshwar Nath Sinha, resident of Naya Bazar,P.O Gomoh,P.S Topchanchi,Dist. Dhanbad.

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building,P.O and P.S Dhurwa Dist. Ranchi.

¶7

2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, having its office at project Building P.O and P.S Dhurwa,Dist.Ranchi.

¶8

3.Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, having its office at Circular Road,P.O G.P.O, P.S Kotwali, Dist.Ranchi.

¶9

….. Respondents

¶10

-----

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

-----

¶13

For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajeet Sinha Advocate

¶14

Mr.Shisir Suman Advocate

¶15

For the J.P.S.C : Mr. A.Allam Adv.

¶16

For the State :- Mr.Vishal Kumar Rai A.C to S.C I

¶17

22nd Order No.4 : Dated July, 2019

¶18

Heard Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, assisted by Shisir Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.Allam, learned counsel for the J.P.S.C and Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai A.C to S.C I for the State..

¶19

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to extend benefit of 2% horizontal reservation in sports quota to the petitioner in view of the advertisement No. 11/2007 published in Hindi daily newspaper Hindustan dated 8.10.2007.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the advertisement, the petitioner is fulfilling the criteria to be appointed on the reservation seat under the sports quota and inspite of that, J.P.S.C has not considered the case of the petitioner in right perspective. He submits

¶21

-2-

¶22

that one Ravi Prakash has been provided appointment under the said quota, who was also not fulfilling the criteria and as such non-consideration of the case of the petitioner is arbitrary on the part of the respondents.

¶23

Mr.Allam, the learned Sr. Counsel for the J.P.S.C submits that as per Rule for consideration of the person under the Sports Quota, as the petitioner is not fulfilling those criterias, he was not considered for the appointment of the said post. He further submits that in view of the rule, the following is required to be fulfilled :-

¶24

(I) Candidates should have represented in the International Olympic Committee or Competitions organized by its associated Federations and achieved Medal.

¶25

(II) Candidates should have represented the National Championship Level Competitions of Indian Olympic or its associated Federations and achieved First Place.

¶26

(III) Candidates should have represented the National Championship level Competition and achieved World Record.

¶27

He submits that the petitioner is not fulfilling any of the above criteria. He draws the attention of this court to the certificate annexed by the petitioner and submits that he has only participated in 68^th Open Bihar Athletic Championship Organized by the private body whereas Ravi Prakash, who has been appointed, has successfully participated in Khokho tournament and certificate to this effect has been issued by the college as well as by the Government of Jharkhand. He further submits that reservation cannot be acceded to 50% and 50% quota has already been fulfilled. On this ground also, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶28

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, no interference is made out with the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶29

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶30

SD/-

Bimlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagendra Tiwary Vs State of Jharkhand

State of Jharkhand Vs Tulsi Prasad Chaubey Alias T P Chaubey

Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma Vs Central Coalfields Limited And O

Birendra Kumar Mehta Vs Transport

MD Asjad Vs Human Resources Department

Binita Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.