VINOD SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of "Sub Inspector" from the advertisement Annexure-P/3 dtd. 15/12/2011.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that, the respondent/State had issued an advertisement on 15/12/2011 for filling up of various posts in the police department, one such post was that of Sub Inspector and the total number of vacancies were 563 out of which total 282 posts were for unreserved category. The petitioner being from the general category was entitled to apply for one such post. As per the advertisement, the minimum age prescribed for the post of Sub Inspector initially was as on 01/01/2012 to be 18 years and the maximum age limit was 28 years. The said advertisement subsequently stood amended vide order dtd. 27/01/2011 whereby the age of recruitment has been enhanced from 28 years to 31 years. The petitioner was called for appearing in the written examination in which he qualified and thereafter he was called for physical test in which also he was found fit and later he was also called for interview. That the petitioner was also interviewed and according to the petitioner he was found eligible and suitable for appointment. However, he was not granted appointment on the ground that the petitioner had meanwhile crossed the maximum age prescribed as per the advertisement, which leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, prior to issuance of advertisement, the petitioner on an earlier occasion had been appointed as Constable on 3/11/2001 and later as Platoon Commander by the respondent and he had worked as a Platoon Commander from 28/08/2008 to 14/09/2011. Thereafter, on account of the merit list of selected candidates being rearranged, the petitioner's appointment was cancelled which was subjected to litigation and finally the Supreme Court vide its judgment dtd. 09/07/2013 had restored the appointment of the petitioner as a Platoon Commander on which post the petitioner is still working.