ARBIND KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. This review application has been filed after the dismissal of the L.P.A. by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2008 and the order of dismissal of L.P.A. was challenged by filing the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that S.L.P. was withdrawn by the writ petitioner so as to prefer the review petition before this Court.

(2.) Before the Supreme Court the plea was taken by the review petitioner that the candidate at Sl. No. 39 belongs to reserved category candidate, has been appointed against the general vacancy. However, Learned Counsel for the review petitioner, while arguing the review petition, has submitted that as per the Notification dated 12.11.2001 adopting the Bihar Police Code. 2000 with amendment by the State of Jharkhand, the marks are to be given ac-cording to the height of the candidate and, therefore, the petitioner having the height in the category of the persons having height of 167.1-169 C.M. and thereby he should have been awarded 7 marks. The candidate at Sl. No. 38 could have been awarded 7 marks as his height was in the class of the candidate having the height of 163.1-165 C.M., therefore, the petitioner would have better marks than the candidate at Sl. No. 39. It is also submitted that through out the stand of the State is that the list sub-mitted by the petitioner was the merit list but now stand has been changed by the State which cannot be accepted. It is also submitted that as per the Notification of the State of Jharkhand dated 12.11.2001 two separate list should have been prepared for the candidates of reserved category and general category whereas list in question is one. However, it is submitted that if the reserved category candidate obtained equal/cut off marks of general category then his name is required to be given in the general category candidate. It is submitted that admittedly the candidate at Sl. No. 39 was belonging to the backward class and was in reserved category and therefore, he could not have been given appointment and in place of him, the petitioner should have been given appointment.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the respondents has completed the process for selection to the post of Constable but, admittedly this selection was technically for the post of Constable but post was meant for Constable driver. The petitioner applied for the post (Constable driver) on the basis of his qualification for the appointment on the post of Constable driver. A complete procedure was prescribed by the Notification No. 02/2004 prescribing the criteria for appointment and in this it is clearly provided that the merit list will be prepared according to the driving ability, knowledge of the traffic signals as well as technical knowledge. It is also submitted that the candidate at Sl. No. 39 was the candidate of backward class and for that his name was included in the another list also. Copy of which has been placed as Annexure-B along with the affidavit filed in the review petition and since he obtained marks for giving appointment in general class, therefore, his name was added there.