ROHIT RAJ Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondents to consider them for their appointments on the post of Police Constables in Indian Reserve Battalion-5. Gumla. The claim of the petitioners is that they were declared successful for their selection after passing through the physical test and other tests prescribed for the selection. The petitioners were also issued call letters, but in spite of their due selection, they have not been appointed till date.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating, inter alia, that the petitioners were initially selected for consideration of their appointments by the Selection Committee and call letters were issued to the petitioners. The said selection was subject to the physical verification and the verification of educational and other certificates. The call letters were sent to them with the conditions that the candidates have to produce their certificates and have to appear for their physical verification and their appointments and joining shall be subject to the said verification. The respondents, accordingly, appeared for their verification after receiving the call letters. On verification, the petitioner Rohit Raj was found to be non- Graduate and as such one mark was reduced from his marks, which was allotted to him by mistake. The cut-off-mark of the selected candidates was 11, but after reduction of one mark, which was allotted to Rohit Raj by mistake, his total marks remained 10 and as such he was not selected. The other petitioners could not get the cut-off-mark in their selection due to their lesser height or other reasons. It has been further stated that issuance of a call letter to any candidate does not confer any right of appointment. The said call letter itself was conditional and the petitioners did not fulfill the required conditions and have not obtained the cut-off-mark.

(3.) Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that once the petitioners were selected and call letters were issued to them, their appointment cannot be denied. The respondents are estopped from refusing appointment and joining of the petitioners in view of the application of the principle of legitimate expectation. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of this Court in Smt. Dulari Lakra v. The State of Bihar and Ore. C.W.J.C. No. 2268/1995(R). It has been submitted that in the said case, call letter was issued to the petitioner, but due to difference in the re-measurement of height, she was denied appointment. This Court after hearing the parties and considering the facts and materials on record, held that the candidate had minimum prescribed height of a lady constable even after re-measurement and as such even if there was some difference in the height recorded after re-measurement, appointment cannot be denied. Learned counsel submitted that the said decision fully applies in this case. Since the respondents have issued call letter/appointment letter to the petitioners, they cannot refuse their appointment and joining.