STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHOUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE post of constable was advertised by issuing Advertisement No. 3/2007 and first select list was published in the month of February, 2009 and second select list in the month of September, 2009. The name of the respondent -writ petitioner was not even in the second select list. The petitioner then challenged the action of the respondents of not giving appointment with the plea that his name in the second select list; was very much there though below the number of the last candidate who had been given appointment. Before the learned Single Judge, it appears that the facts were not placed by the State and it was only contended that there is no vacancy and therefore, no appointment can be offered to the writ petitioner. Before the Single Bench, a supplementary affidavit was filed on 6.04.2010 and along with the said supplementary affidavit, a document was produced by the writ petitioner issued from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi written to the Director General of Police, Hazaribagh showing 55 vacancies for unreserved category. The petitioner was a candidate in the unreserved category i.e., general category. In view of the supplementary affidavit and the document produced along with the supplementary affidavit, learned Single Judge held that since there exist vacancy and the petitioner is equal in all respect with the last selected candidate, he be given appointment.

(2.) THE State, after committing mistake of not placing relevant materials before the learned Single Judge, faced contempt proceedings and according to the learned counsel for the respondent -writ petitioner even in contempt proceeding, false plea was taken by the State that the appointing authority was not available in India and, therefore they cannot offer appointment to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, a Civil Review No. 35 of 2011 was submitted before the learned Single Judge, wherein it has been stated that the last appointee was from the select list standing at serial no. 502 whereas the writ petitioner was at serial no. 607, which is 105 number below the last selected candidate. All the candidates from serial nos. 503 to 607 secured the same number for the purpose of merit and candidate whose name was at serial no. 502 since was the older in age, he was given appointment. The Review Petition filed by the State was dismissed by the order dated 28.06.2011 by saying only that there is no force in the Review Petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State candidly admitted that serious mistake was committed by the State in conducting the case before the learned Single Judge where the relevant material facts were not placed, that caused the confusion resulting into passing of the order by the Single Bench in the writ petition under the assumption that the writ petitioner secured the same merit number as was secured by last selected candidate having his name at serial no. 502 and if there is vacancy, then the writ petitioner could have been given appointment. The State failed to draw the attention of the Single Bench that as per the Rules, which are not in dispute, if any appointment is not given on the vacant post within a period of six months from declaration of the select list, then that post goes and requires to be advertised in the next selection process. In this case also, after expiry of six months the vacancies were included in the subsequent issued Advertisement No. 1 of 2010. It is submitted that after expiry of six months no appointment could have been given and in fact, no appointment has been given. It is also submitted that the petitioner also did not disclose that from the select list the last candidate selected was at serial no. 502 and the petitioner 'snumber was at serial no. 607 and, therefore, unless there would have been at least 105 vacancies, the petitioner could not have got appointment. It is also submitted that, if the writ petitioner is given appointment ignoring the claim of other candidate from Serial No. 503 to 606 from select list, then they may also claim their right to be appointed on the simple plea that a person having below in select list to them was appointed and, therefore, they are entitled to be appointed against the said 55 vacancies.