KANCHAN KUMAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Mr. P.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though petitioner was called for appointment but he has not been given appointment on the ground that he is non-Matric, as will appear from the counter affidavit, though the Supreme Court has held that even non Matric candidate could be considered for appointment.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State, referring to paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, submitted that erroneously in the test records, his educational qualification was shown as "Matriculate" and therefore he was given 6 marks for the same and 8 marks for his height. The total of which came to 14 and accordingly he was shown to have secured 14 marks, which made him eligible for appointment in "Matriculate Category" and therefore he was issued letter informing him that he was selected. He further submitted that in the letter dated 23.12.2005, it was clearly mentioned that petitioner is selected but if he is found eligible on the basis of the certificates etc., he will be appointed. When the petitioner turned up and his certificates were examined, it was revealed that he failed in Matric and therefore he was entitled to 5marks instead of 6 marks and thus the total marks obtained by him was only 13 instead of 14 awarded to him earlier due to inadvertence. He further submitted that the last candidate appointed in the category to which the petitioner belongs i.e. non Matric, Non- Home Guard and other Backward class had secured 16 marks and therefore petitioner could not be appointed on the post of constable. The said counter affidavit was filed as far back as on 16.7.2009. No rejoinder has been filed to the same by the petitioner. It is settled position that selection does not create a right in favour of a candidate for being appointed. It also cannot be disputed that mistake, if any, committed can be rectified and that will not give a right to the petitioner to claim appointment.