IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2475 of 2011
Dhirendra Kumar Shukla .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
For the Petitioner : M/s. Dr. S.N.Pathak, Sr. Advocate
Bindeshwari Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to A.G.
-----
2/15.07.2011
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the
respondents to issue letter of appointment on the post of Constable Driver in the
district of Latehar to the petitioner, who has been declared duly qualified and
finally selected.
It has been stated that in response to the advertisement, the petitioner
had applied for appointment on the post of Constable Driver in Latehar district.
He possesses all the requisite qualification for the said post and appeared in all
the tests. He was declared qualified by obtaining requisite marks, but while the
other candidates, who had qualified in the test, have been appointed,
appointment letter has not been issued to the petitioner till date. The petitioner
made requests several times and also filed representations before the
Chairman, Selection Board-cum-Superintendent of Police, Latehar , but till date,
no order has been passed.
The respondents have opposed the petitioner’s writ petition. However, in
the counter affidavit filed by them, it has been stated that the petitioner obtained
qualifying marks, but he has not been appointed as he had contravened the
conditions mentioned in the advertisement for the said post. However, in the
counter affidavit, no specific reason has been assigned as to which term of
appointment was violated by the petitioner.
Learned J.C. to A.G., appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted
that though the petitioner has obtained qualifying marks for the said post, he has
not been appointed as he has submitted double Application Form.
In reply to the said allegation, it has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner had submitted only one Application Form in
Latehar district and he had also not appeared in any test in any other
district. He further submitted that the respondents have themselves
admitted in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit that the other candidates-
who had filled up Form in different districts- have been appointed on
obtaining qualifying marks as they are SC/ST. According to learned
counsel, the respondents are discriminating the petitioner on the ground
that other candidates are not of general category. Learned counsel submitted
that the terms and conditions were one and the same for all categories,
except the percentage of posts reserved for certain categories. Denial
of the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that he had filled up
.2.
double Application Form while giving appointment to other similarly situated
persons is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on
record. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have clearly admitted that the
petitioner has obtained qualifying marks. They have further admitted that Jairam
Paswan and Nagvanshi Oraon having same alleged defect have been
appointed. The reason assigned by them is that they are the members of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. On perusal of the advertisement,
brought on record(Annexure-1), I do not find any different terms and conditions
for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category and other category so far as
submission of applications are concerned. Further, the respondents have not
brought the another copy of the petitioner’s application Form on record to show
that he had submitted double application Form for the said post in Latehar
district. There is no specific term for rejecting the application of the petitioner on
submission of forms in other district. The facts admitted by the petitioner, thus,
clearly go to establish that the respondents have discriminated the petitioner by
not issuing appointment letter while appointing other similarly situated
candidates, who had allegedly filled up double Forms. More so, when filling up
double Form has not been established by them in this Court. Since there is no
different term and condition in the manner of submitting applications by
candidates of general category and by the candidates of reserved category, the
respondents cannot adopt double standard and deny valuable right to the
petitioner on the said arbitrary ground. The respondents being the public officer
cannot adopt pick and choose policy and cannot deny appointment of the
petitioner on the ground, which has not been applied in cases of the aforesaid
similarly situated candidates.
Considering the above, this writ petition is allowed. The Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Palamau Range, Daltonganj-respondent no.3 is directed to
consider the petitioner’s claim and issue appropriate order, within six weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
( Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
s.b.