SANJAY PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ application the Petitioner, Sanjay Prasad has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents to appoint him on the post of Constable. According to the Petitioner, he applied for the post of constable pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/98 which was published on 27 -8 -1998 after fulfilling all the requisite qualification. Subsequently, he appeared in the physical examination and he was given receipt and was also allotted a roll number for appearing in the physical test required for the appointment of Constable in the State Police Service. He has stated that he appeared in the said test and also passed but he was rejected on the ground that he did not posses adequate height. According to the Petitioner, he belongs to the O. B. C. category but in order to eliminate him, the Respondents recorded his height wrongly and disqualified him from recruitment. The Petitioner filed representation but no positive result came out as a result of which the Petitioner filed the present writ application.

(2.) IN this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.5 (S. P. Palamau) and it has been, inter alia, stated that there has been no discrimination so far as the Petitioner is concerned and the minimum height of the candidate selected from out of the O. B. C. -1 Category was recorded at 178.50 Cms which was greater than the petitioner and that the height of the petitioner as recorded by the Selection Board in the Master Chart was 177.3 Cms. and not 177.2 Cms. as claimed by him at paragraph -6 of the writ application. The Respondents have brought on record the photocopy of the Master Chart as Annexures -A and A/ 1 which shows that his height was recorded as 177.3 Cms. and the petitioner has also put signature on the same.

(3.) WHEN this case was called out on 22 -4 -2002, learned counsel for the State drew the attention to the Judgment delivered in W. P. (S) No. 2644 of 2001. The said writ was filed by one Kundan Kumar Mishra who was also aggrieved for his not having been finally selected pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/98. In his case the learned Single Judge, by order dated 26 -6 -2001, after having taken notice of the fact that another advertisement No. 1/2001 had been issued for appointment to the post of Constables, held that in view of the fact that panel of 1988 having lost its force, he was not inclined to direct the Respondents to make appointment out of such stale panel.