KRISHNAJEE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-appellant was one of the candidate for the post of Constable in the Police Department. In the process of selection of such candidates for four districts of the State of Jharkhand, namely, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Chatra and Giridih, the candidates were required to appear in the written test and also to undertake physical test. The petitioner was a successful candidate and his name was in the select list. However, a writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 1458/2004, was filed in the High Court relating to some dispute of the qualification and the same was finally disposed of on 13.3.2005. On disposal of the petition, Superintendents of Police of the districts were asked to fill up the available post of police constables and send them for training by 31st May, 2005. Some of the candidates joined duties but the petitioner, Krishnajee, could not join duty. Be that as it may, on 10.12.2005, an order was passed cancelling the selection of the police constables in the all above four districts. The selection was cancelled on the ground of various irregularities. Challenging the cancellation order, the petitioner himself preferred writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 1242/2006, which was heard by the Division Bench of this Court alongwith other connected writ petitions and was allowed, vide judgment delivered in the case of Krishnaji & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, 2006 4 JLJR 702. In the said writ petition, it has been held that in view of the Apex Court judgment delivered in the case of Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu & Anr, 2003 7 SCC 285, the doctrine of proportionality can be applied in the present case and in view of the fact that in the process of selection, it was found that written test was conducted and though the written test has not been vitiated in any manner, there were irregularities and that too, either in recording of the physical standards of the candidates or their date of birth and with respect to certain certificates and therefore, it was not necessary to cancel the entire selection process. In view of the enquiry report, the Division Bench of this Court held that excluding 932 candidates, who were identified by the Enquiry Officer and found to be beneficiaries of malpractice during the selection, all other candidates be given appointment. The Division Bench also passed order for holding departmental enquiry against one Shri C.P. Kiran, the then Superintendent of Police, Chatra-cum-Chairman, Constable Recruitment Committee-3 and also against any other Officer found involved in malpractice in the said recruitment. After this judgment, the petitioner was again called for presentation of documents and thereafter, he was given appointment also. After giving appointment, vide order dated 7th July, 2007, the petitioner's appointment was cancelled on the ground that he got the appointment by manipulation in the master chart and other records, wherein it was found that his name was inserted by affixing a slip in the chart and below his name, there was the name of Binod Kumar Mishra. Therefore, his selection was cancelled. Aggrieved against the order dated 7.7.2007, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 3928/2007, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge after perusing the original record and finding substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that there was manipulation in the register and petitioner's name was inserted by manipulation only. This appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has finally decided the dispute in relation to the petitioner's own case, vide judgment referred above Krishnaji & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. It is submitted that in the said judgment of the Division Bench, a specific direction was issued to the respondents to give appointment to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the facts of the petitioner's own case, which has been considered in paragraph no. 9 of the above-referred judgment, wherein it was found that except the present writ petitioner, against the other writ petitioners, who were writ petitioners alongwith the present petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1242/2006, there was allegation of manipulation and therefore, writ petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof, were denied appointment by the High Court and only the present petitioner was the successful candidate against whom there was no allegation of manipulation. In view of this finding, the respondents had no jurisdiction to reagitate the issue by finding fault in the appointment process for appointment of the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the allegation levelled against the writ petitioner was not in the enquiry report, which was submitted before the High Court in the earlier round of litigation and each individual case was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer and only 932 candidates were found disqualified in which the petitioner's name was not included and the petitioner's writ petition was specifically allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently submitted that it will be clear from the reply affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police in the writ petition, W.P.(S) No. 1242/2006, itself wherein he categorically stated in his own report, Annexure-A filed alongwith his own reply counter-affidavit, that the petitioner, Krishnajee, was a successful candidate and his roll number was 4030 and he qualified in the physical test and his name was in the list of successful candidates published in the daily newspaper. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact that the appointment of the candidates, whose names were inserted by affixing slip in the chart, was cancelled, is also apparent from the report of the Inspector General, Annexure-A, and therefore, as back as on 28.3.2006, there was no allegation of manipulation in the register.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment dated 5.8.2009 of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Ranjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 296/2009, in which one of us (Hon'ble Jaya Roy, J.) was a party, and submitted that when the Department wanted to deny appointment to other candidates than 932 candidates, the Division Bench in the said judgment set aside the order of dismissal-holding that in that case, the appellant was again dismissed from service on the basis of same enquiry report dated 31.10.2005, which could not have been done because of the reason that the issue had already been decided in the writ petition preferred earlier, in the case in Krishnaji's matter. The Division Bench took note of the fact that similar several writ petitions were filed, those writ petitions were allowed and cancellation of appointment were quashed by this Court. In view of the above, the said writ petition preferred by Ranjay Kumar Singh was also allowed. The case of the petitioner in this case is identical to the case of Ranjay Kumar Singh.