PINKU KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer of the Petitioners in these writ applications are prima facie innocuous. They have prayed for a direction to the Respondents to consider their cases and declare their result, pursuant to the first round of Physical Evaluation Test (for short (PET-1') itself and appoint them as constables against quota of current vacancies for Non-Home Guard (N-H.G.) candidates advertised through advertisement No. 2 of 2009, published in the newspaper on 11.12.2009.

(2.) The grievance of the Petitioners is very simple, but a very pregnant one. As per their claim, they were finally found selected and eligible for appointment after PET-1. There were sufficient numbers of candidates available after the PET-1 for appointment against the entire 50% quota (5058) of the advertised vacancies, earmarked for being filled up from N-H.G. candidates. But the Respondents have declared result of only 2228 candidates after PET-1, by Annexure-4 dated 18.8.2010, leaving out the Petitioners and others, and leaving out unfilled large number of the said 50% vacancies of the said quota. Therefore, the simple prayer is that all the candidates who were finally found eligible in the first round of PET-1 should be directed to be appointed on the remaining vacancies of the said quota for N-H.G. candidates.

(3.) This prayer of the Petitioners, prima facie appearing as very simple and straightforward, is in fact an intricate one and requires this Court to go into the reasons for their non-consideration in spite of they being declared successful in the selection process held by the Respondents for appointment of constables pursuant to the said advertisement. Had the Petitioners raised individual grievances, in respect of marks shown to have been obtained by them in the written test or their markings in the PET-1, matter would have been easier. But here the Petitioners have claimed, and it is not disputed, that they had qualified in the written test and were found eligible also in the PET-1. Still they have not been appointed, although vacancies (also not disputed) were available. This required this Court to have a look into the entire selection process, from no angle an easy task for this Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.