Dismissed

Ram Binay Ram v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Jun 2022LPA/698/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Letters Patent Appeal was filed by 59 unsuccessful candidates challenging the rejection of their appointment as Sub Inspector of Police despite relaxed physical fitness norms. The High Court followed the Allahabad High Court's order, directing consideration for future vacancies only.

What did the court decide?

State of Jharkhand directed to consider appellants' claim in future promotion exercises if eligible per amended Rules.

Ram Binay Ram Vs State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

LPA No. 698 of 2018

¶3

Ram Binay Ram & 58 others … … Appellants

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand & 2 others … … Respondents

¶6

-------

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶8

¶9

For the Appellants : Mr. Kalyan Roy,Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG For the JSSC : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate-IV Mr. Birju Thakur, Advocate

O R D E R

13^th June 2022

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

¶14

The appellants, 59 in numbers, who were writ petitioners have challenged the order dated 5^th October 2018 passed in WP(S) No. 4166 of 2018.

¶15

By the said order, the prayer of the appellants for their appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police by extending relaxation in the physical test in view of the amended Rules was declined by the writ Court.

¶16

The amended Rules provide as under:

¶17

Category	Run
Male Candidate	8 km run, within 60 minutes.
Female Candidate	04 km run, within 40 minutes.

¶18

Before the aforesaid amendment in the Rules, the physical test

¶19

requirements were as under:

¶20

Category	Run
Male Candidate	10 km run, within 60 minutes.
Female Candidate	05 km run, within 35 minutes.

¶21

The writ Court taking note of the judgment in “N.T. Devin Katti & others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission” (1990)3 SCC 157 which is to the effect that a statutory rule is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect and

¶22

2 LPA 698 of 2018

¶23

the judgment in “Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmar Sheth etc.” AIR 1984 SC 1543 which is to the effect that a policy cannot be challenged on the ground of ineffectiveness and that there may be a better policy, dismissed the writ petition on the following grounds as recorded in paragraph No. 12 of the order dated 5^th October 2018 which reads as under:

¶24

“12. The instant writ petition cannot be entertained on the following grounds:-

¶25

(i) The examination is over and the results have been published;

¶26

(ii) Petitioners have approached this Court after fully participating in the process of examination and only after being declared unsuccessful;

¶27

(iii) Even if vacancies are still there, no right has accrued to the petitioners for appointment as filling-up of the vacancies totally lies within domain of the employer and not the legal right of the candidates;

¶28

(iv) Petitioners never raised objection rather accepted and fully participated in the examination.”

¶29

The writ Court finally held that there was no infirmity or illegality in the decision in making appointments to the post of Sub Inspector of Police and the applicants who were declared disqualified cannot seek benefit under the amended Rules.

¶30

At the outset, Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court pursuant to a direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition(s) (Civil) No.(s). 1414 of 2016 and batch cases, it may not be necessary to examine the matter on merits.

¶31

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to the learned AG, would submit that the appellants who fulfill the other criteria would be considered for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police in future vacancies in terms of the amended Rules of 2018.

¶32

A glance at the order dated 28^th February 2018 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 12735 of 2014 and analogous cases would indicate that the writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates who applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police for promotion through limited examination were dismissed and the writ appeals also stood dismissed by the High Court. In the fresh round of litigation several writ petitions were again filed before the Allahabad High Court and subsequently

¶33

3 LPA 698 of 2018

¶34

those writ petitions were transferred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were numbered as Transfer Petition(s) (Civil) No.(s). 1414 of 2016 and analogous cases. The aforesaid transfer petitions were finally withdrawn on 31^st July 2017 and, consequently, the writ petitions were restored before the High Court.

¶35

The order dated 31^st July 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:

¶36

“Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the transfer petitions. The transfer petitions are permitted to be withdrawn. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,we request the High Court to consider the petitioners' prayer for appointment according to the relaxed criterion of 2015 if otherwise eligible, in existing vacancies preferably within three months from today.”

¶37

Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the appellants has heavily relied on the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 31^st July 2017 that in the changed circumstances the High Court should consider the prayer for appointment in the existing vacancies according to the relaxed criteria.

¶38

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by the order dated 28^th February 2018, after taking note of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has directed as under:

¶39

“The third respondent, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, shall consider the petitioners' claim for promotion as and when they undertake the exercise of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors in future, if they are otherwise eligible for the promotion. It is needless to mention that the petitioners will have to clear physical efficiency test as provided in the Rules, as amended in 2013. In other words, the petitioners will have to clear physical efficiency test for promotion to the post of SubInspector (Civil Police) as per the relaxed criterian, 2015 , as observed by the Supreme Court. It is made clear that, under any circumstance, the petitioners shall not claim notional promotion or any other benefit from any date earlier to their actual promotion. With these observations, writ petitions are disposed of.

¶40

We are of the opinion that we cannot grant any relief to the appellants beyond what has been granted by the Allahabad High Court pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Not only because there is no direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the present case to consider the appellant's claim for promotion against the unfilled vacancies, the State of Jharkhand has also taken a specific objection to such a

¶41

4 LPA 698 of 2018

¶42

claim on the ground that the selection process has long been completed. 14. Accordingly, we direct the State of Jharkhand to consider the appellants' claim in any exercise for promotion to be undertaken in future if they are otherwise eligible for promotion as per the amended Rules.

¶43