Dismissed¶55

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary

Jharkhand HC22 Oct 2024LPA/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA 39/2024, Jharkhand High Court, decided 22.10.2024 (Deepak Roshan, J. with the Chief Justice) — recruitment challenge by unsuccessful JSSC Sub-Inspector candidates (Advertisement No. 05/2017); participation in recruitment without pre-result challenge bars post-result challenge to selection process; normalisation-of-marks clause disclosed in advertisement cannot be belatedly questioned; G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow (1976) 3 SCC 585 relied on; impugned judgment dated 16.06.2023 in WP(S) 3928/2018 upheld; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal fails and is dismissed with no costs. ¶55

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal fails and is dismissed with no costs.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, who participated in the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2017 and never challenged the terms and conditions of the examination prior to declaration of the final results, could challenge the selection process after being declared unsuccessful. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

A candidate who participates in the recruitment process and never challenges the terms and conditions of the examination prior to declaration of the final results cannot, after being declared unsuccessful, challenge the selection process; such action is not permissible in law. The Division Bench expressly agrees with the learned Single Judge's reasoning on this point.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

Because the normalisation process was mentioned in the advertisement itself, the appellants were fully aware of it before participating in the recruitment process and therefore could not have challenged it.

¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. The appellants, unsuccessful candidates in the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission's recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and allied posts under Advertisement No. 05/2017, challenged their non-selection in the final result published on 27.06.2018 and the advertisement's normalisation-of-marks clause only after the results were declared. Held (Division Bench, agreeing with the learned Single Judge): candidates who take part in the entire recruitment process without ever challenging the terms and conditions of the examination prior to declaration of the final result cannot, after being declared unsuccessful, challenge the selection process, as such action is not permissible in law; further, since the normalisation process was disclosed in the advertisement itself, the participants were fully aware of it and could not later question it. The learned Single Judge's judgment dated 16.06.2023 in W.P(S) No. 3928 of 2018, which had relied on G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585, was upheld. Appeal dismissed; no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A. No. 39 of 2024

¶3

¶4

Rakesh Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Arbind Jha, resident of Village-Baijudih, P.O.-Surihari, P.S.- Amarpur, DistrictBanka (Bihar).

¶5

Aniket, aged about 28 years, S/o Sri Mahendra Kumar Singh, resident of Buddha Colony, Adallwari, Near Mazar, Hazipur, P.O. and P.S.-Hazipur, District-Vaishali (Bihar).

¶6

Tanishque, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Jay Prakash Narayan Singh, resident of Village-Hisua Panchu Gadh, P.O. and P.S.-Hisua, DistrictNawada (Bihar).

¶7

Ravish Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Vijay Tiwari, resident of Village-Kab, RanitalawKanpa, P.O. -Kab and P.S.-Kab, District-Patna (Bihar).

¶8

Yaspal Bharti, aged about 27 years, S/o Sri Tripurari Prasad Singh, resident of Village+P.O.-Siktia, P.S. Chitra, District-Deoghar.

¶9

Prakash Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah, resident of Village-Pandaha, P.O.-Pathra, P.S.-Godda and District-Godda.

¶10

Kamal Kishor, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri Damodar Mandal, resident of Village- Dhodiya, P.O.-Baramsholi, and P.S.-Chitra, District-Deoghar.

¶11

Hemant Kumar Singh, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Shatrughan Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Banhe, P.O. and P.S.-Simaria, District-Chatra.

¶12

Saurabh Kumar Choubey, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Sanjay Kumar Choubey, resident of A.N. Singh Road, Kusai Colony, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶13

10.Nilesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Radheshyam Yadav, resident of 174, Kajipur, P.O. -Mariahu,P.S.-Jaunpur, District-Jaunpur (Uttar Pradesh).

¶14

11.Amit Sony, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Sita Ram Prasad Verma, resident of village-PhushBanglow, P.O.Bhaga, P.S.-Bhaga, District-Dhanbad.

¶15

12.Anil Kumar Yadav, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Prasadi Yadav, resident of Near Lala, Sought Shivpur, Okani-2, P.O. and P.S. -Hazaribag, DistrictHazaribag.

¶16

13.Shwetabh Ranjan, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Krishna Prasad Singh, resident of Bansari, P.O. & P.S.- Simariya, District-Chatra.

¶17

14.Bipin Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Nripati Yadav, resident of Yaduvansh Nagar, Ward No. 25, Municipal Corporation Chas, P.O. and P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro.

¶18

15.Dharmendra Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri Shambhu Sahu, resident of Village- Salgi, P.O.-Jabra, P.S.-Simariya, District-Chatra.

..Appellants

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶23

The Secretary / Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police), having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶24

The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, having its office at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,Town and District- Ranchi.

¶25

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, having its office at Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. + P.S.-Namkum, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶26

The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. + P.S.-Namkum, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶27

Sandeep Anand, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Parmod Bihari Singh, resident of D.T.-65, Sharma Road, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & District-Ranchi.

¶28

Sumit Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Shambhu Nath Singh, resident of Chaka, Karchhana, Chaka, Allahabad, P.O. and P.S.-Allahabad, DistrictAllahabad (Uttar Pradesh).

¶29

Kanhaiya Jee, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Manoj Kumar, resident of Shiv Temple, Narhat, P.O. and P.S.-Narhat, District-Nawada (Bihar).

¶30

Vikas Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Surendra Prasad, resident of H. No. 34, Bichla Muhalla, Village-Chainpur, P.O. and P.S.-Chainpur, DistrictPalamau.

¶31

10.Abinash Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Amarnath Sah, resident of Milky Tola, Asarganj, Belari, Bhagalpur, P.O. and P.S. -Asarganj, DistrictBhagalpur (Bihar).

¶32

11.Ashwani Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Arun Kumar Singh, resident of 350, Indraprastha Road, Kumhatoli, P.O. and P.S. -Barkagaon, District-Hazaribag.

¶33

12.Manish Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Narendra Prasad Singh, resident of 76, JagoNiwas Gali, Matwari, P.O.-Hazaribag, P.S.-Hazaribag Sadar, District-Hazaribag.

¶34

13.Rahul Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/0 Sri Mahesh Prasad Singh, resident of At Chancho, P.O.- Nariana, P.S.-Khaira, District-Jamui (Bihar)

¶35

14.Dilip Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Jagdeo Yadav, resident of Village-Tilaiya, Barachatti, P.O. and P.S.- Barachatti, District-Gaya (Bihar).

¶36

15.Alok Mohan Pandey, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Umesh Kumar Pandey, resident of Village-Sabladih, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.- Rajdhanwar, DistrictGiridih.

¶37

¶38

16.Priyanka Kumari, aged about 31 years, D/o Sri Vijay Prasad, resident of H. No. 80, Ram Nagar Colony, Near Bihar Flour Mill, Chas, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro.

¶39

17.Randhir Kumar Saksena, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Anant Kumar Singh, resident of Ram Nagar (KutuwanChak), Jehanabad, P.O. and P.S.-Jehanbad, District-Jehanabad (Bihar).

¶40

18.Ranjan Kumar Sharma, aged about 31 years, S/o Sri Parasnath Sharma, resident of Village-Manjhiladih, P.O.- Chatro, P.S.-Deori, District-Giridih.

¶41

19.Niranjan Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Parmeshwar Kumar Yadav, resident of PihraManpur, Pihra, Giridih, P.O. and P.S.-Giridin, DistrictGiridih.

¶42

20.Ankita Rani, aged about 27 years, D/o Sri Shankar Prasad Singh, resident of Shiv Shakti Nagar, Haider Ali Road, Kokar, P.O. and P.S.-Kokar, Town and District- Ranchi.

¶43

... Respondents

¶44

¶45

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶46

--For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. State : M/s. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA, Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C to AAG-IA For the Resp. JSSC :M/s. Sanjoy Diprawall, Rakesh Ranjan, Prince Kumar, Jay Prakash, Advocates

¶47

¶48

07/ Dated: 22.10.2024

¶49

This appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 16.06.2023 in W.P(S) No. 3928 of 2018.

¶50

The appellants had filed the said writ petition contending that they had applied to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police or other allied posts pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2017 floated by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission; that they had appeared in the preliminary test, mains exam and physical test as well as medical test and were declared successful in all the events; but in the final result, which was published on 27.06.2018, they were not finally selected and their names did not figure in the select list. They also questioned the clause in the advertisement providing for normalisation of marks.

¶51

The learned Single Judge has held that no case was made out for interference since they had participated in the recruitment process and had never challenged the terms and conditions of the examination prior to

¶52

¶53

declaration of the final results, and after they were declared unsuccessful in the final result only, they had challenged the selection process and such action was not permissible in law.

¶54

The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in G.Sarana (Dr.) vs. University of Lucknow and Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 585 . The learned Single Judge further held that the appellants were fully aware regarding normalisation process before participating in the recruitment process because the same was mentioned in the advertisement itself. Therefore, they could not have challenged it.

¶55

We agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

¶56

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶57

jk/Vedanti

¶58

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Jharkhand Vs Sukhmet Debi

Sri Shatrughan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pradip Kumar Roy Alias Pradip Roy Vs the State of Jharkhand

Setu Printers Security Printing Press Represented through Its Manager Sri Bipin Chandra Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Suresh Thakur Vs Jharkhand Police Housing Corporation Ltd. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Julious Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand