Dismissed¶34

Shreya Kumari Tirkey v. the State of Jharkhand

Recruitment – Medical examination – Non-appearance

Jharkhand HC10 Apr 2024WPC/773/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, W.P.(S) No. 773 of 2023, decided 10.04.2024 (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.). JPSC recruitment; non-appearance in post-interview medical examination at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi; strict compliance with instructions in selection process; mandamus under Article 226 refused; Scheduled Tribe candidate; State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa, (2020) 19 SCC 430 applied; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no ambiguity in the press release: the candidate was supposed to attend the medical examination on the very next day of the interview. ¶27

Shreya Kumari Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly JPSC, to conduct her medical test/examination and appoint her, notwithstanding her non-appearance in the medical examination scheduled for the day after her interview. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

There is no ambiguity in the press release: the candidate was supposed to attend the medical examination on the very next day of the interview.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner did not comply with the terms of the selection process; having failed to attend the medical examination on the next day of her interview, her candidature has been rightly rejected.

¶28

Key takeaways

A candidate who has not complied with the terms and conditions of the selection process and has not followed the instructions regarding the medical examination does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as no relief can be granted beyond what is permissible under law.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recruitment - Medical examination - Non-appearance - Press notice (Annexure-5) clearly stipulated that a candidate had to attend the medical examination at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi on the very next day of interview - Petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe candidate who claimed to have scored more marks than the last selected candidate in her category, did not appear in the medical examination and sought mandamus to conduct her medical test and appoint her - Held: the instructions issued by the recruiting Commission are mandatory, having the force of law, and must be strictly complied with; the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify or relax such instructions (following State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa, (2020) 19 SCC 430, para 8); there being no ambiguity in the press release and the petitioner having failed to comply with the terms of the selection process, her candidature was rightly rejected and she was not entitled to any relief under Article 226 - Writ petition dismissed; pending interlocutory application, if any, closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 773 of 2023

¶3

Shreya Kumari Tirkey, aged about 27 years, Daughter of Sukhi Oraon, Resident of Quarter no. 17/4, University Colony, Bariatu, P.O. & P.S Bariatu & District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 4^th floor Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶6

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman having its office at Circular Road, P.O., P.S. Lalpur & District Ranchi. 4. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission having its office at Circular Road, P.O., P.S. Lalpur & District Ranchi. … … Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate : Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Amritanshu Singh, Advocate ---

¶10

06 /10.04.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶11

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶12

“i. For issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent JPSC to conduct the medical test/examination of the petitioner in view of the fact that she could not appear in the said medical test/examination as because no specific date was mentioned and rather vague and unclear information was provided by the respondent Jharkhand Public Service Commission regarding the date of medical test and consequently appoint the petitioner on the concerned post/service as she is a very meritorious candidate and has scored 641 marks in the said examination which is much above the cut-off marks and has not been declared qualified only because she did not appear in the medical test/examination.

¶13

AND/OR

¶14

The respondents may be directed to reserve the posts for appointment of the petitioner during pendency of this writ application.”

¶15

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

¶16

petitioner had participated in the selection process under the Scheduled Tribe category and attended the document verification on 14.05.2022 and interview on 15.05.2022. Ultimately, she scored more marks than the last selected candidate in her category, but remained

¶17

¶18

unsuccessful on account of the fact that she did not appear in the medical examination.

¶19

4. The learned Senior counsel has referred to the press notice (Annexure- 5) and has submitted that interview and document verification was said to be scheduled during the period from 09.05.2022 to 16.05.2022 and it was stated that on the next day of interview, the candidate has to attend Sadar Hospital, Ranchi for the purposes of medical examination. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner went to Sadar Hospital for medical examination, but there was utter confusion and she could not locate as to where the medical examination was being conducted. He has submitted that consequently the medical examination of the petitioner could not be conducted.

¶20

5. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner being a Scheduled Tribe candidate and a meritorious one having secured more marks than the last selected candidate, she deserves full sympathy of this Court and equity lies in favour of Scheduled Tribe candidates who are from under-privileged category.

¶21

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that the interview was held and the petitioner was supposed to attend the medical examination test on the next day. The press notice was very clear that the medical examination was to be conducted in Sadar Hospital on the next day of interview. He submits that there being no ambiguity in the press release, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

¶22

7. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the terms of advertisement and the selection process are required to be strictly complied. This is all the more because of the reason that the petitioner may not be an isolated candidate.

¶23

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraph 8 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. G. Hemalathaa and another” reported in (2020) 19 SCC 430 and has submitted that the

¶24

¶25

instructions issued by the respondent – JPSC are mandatory in nature and have the force of law and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and had attended the document verification and also interview. As per the press release, the candidate was supposed to attend medical examination on the next day of the interview. The press release is contained in Annexure- 5 to the writ petition.

¶27

10. This Court finds that there is no ambiguity in connection with the fact that on the very next day of interview, the candidate was supposed to attend the medical examination. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attend the medical test and has claimed that when the petitioner went for medical examination to the concerned office, there was no medical test going on. It is the argument of the petitioner that the petitioner could not locate the place where the medical examination was going on.

¶28

11. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not complied with the terms of the selection process. She was to attend the medical examination on the next day of her interview, but having not done so, the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly rejected.

¶29

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment of “State of Tamil Nadu Vs. G. Hemalathaa” (Supra) has held in paragraph 8 as follows:

¶30

“8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission.”

¶31

13. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner having not complied with the terms and conditions of the selection process and has not followed the instructions with regard to her medical examination, does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the

¶32

¶33

Constitution of India as no relief can be granted beyond what is permissible under law.

¶34

14. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶36

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶37

Pankaj

¶38