DHANESHWAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred against an order, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Koderma, dated 5th March, 2008, at Annexure 7 to the memo of petition, whereby the candidature of the present petitioner for the post of Constable has been rejected.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehermently submitted that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is entitled to the fundamental rights, guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India i.e. the petitioner has a right of equal opportunity in public employment. In pursuance of a public advertisement bearing Advertisement No. 1/04, published on 13th January, 2004, for appointment to the post of Police Constable, an application was preferred by the petitioner and the petitioner became a successful candidate in all types of tests i.e. written as well as physical tests. the petitioner is a reserved category candidate, especially of a Scheduled Caste and has secured 16 marks, as per the method of allotment of marks prescribed by the respondents and a candidate having 14 marks in a Scheduled Caste category has been appointed as a Constable and the only reason given by the Superintendent of Police, Koderma, in the impugned order dated 5th March, 2008, which is at Annexure 7 to the memo of petition, is that in some Master Chart, prepared by the Government officials, there is some over-writing, so far as the height is concerned and, therefore, the petitioner has been made ineligible and incompetent for appointment to the post of Constable. This reason is no reason in the eyes of law. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has done the over-writing in the Master Chart. There us not a single allegation against the petitioner by the respondents. Even otherwise also, the so called Register and Master Chart etc. are being maintained by the respondents-police authorities. Petitioner is not even allowed to touch those Registers or Master Chart. If there is my over-writing, the petitioner is not at all aware of the fact that what is over writing and whether it is because of any manipulation. Neither any show cause notice nor an opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner and, in fact, by the impugned order, the Superintendent of Police, Koderma, has not even put any allegation against the petitioner that the said Master Chart was in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has manipulated the Master Chart of the Government.

(3.) It is also vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a valuable right, conferred by Article 16 of the Constitution of India, cannot be taken away by this type of letter/order. In fact, there is no error on the part of the petitioner, in maintaining the Master Chart and even if there is any over-writing in the Master Chart, the Government itself is responsible for it. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is thoroughly non-application of mind and reveals nothing else, but, an arbitrary action. Assuming, without admitting, that there is some error in measurement of the height of a candidate, then the police department ought to have thought twice before taking away the right under Article 16 of the Constitution of India that the height is not such a factor, which can be manipulated by anybody. Height can be re-measured also. If there is any doubt about the height of the petitioner, the high ranking police officers could have appointed a doctor to measure the height and, therefore, the reason, which has been given in the impugned order, is no reason in the eyes of law, especially when the petitioner has not manipulated the Master Chart, maintained by the respondent-authorities and, therefore, the order at Annexure 7 to the memo of petition, passed by Superintendent of Police, Koderma, dated 5th March, 2008 deserved to be quashed and set aside.