SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 31.03.2013 whereby his representation seeking appointment on the post of constable has been rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to advertisement no. 01/2004, the petitioner appeared in the selection process and he had cleared the physical as well as the written test. However, since the petitioner was not offered appointment, he moved a representation before the concerned authority. As the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the concerned authority, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4396 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 04.02.2013 directing the respondentauthority to decide the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh representation also. The representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected by order dated 31.03.2013 and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in the proceeding of W.P.(S) No. 4396 of 2012, the respondents filed a counter affidavit in which they took a stand that, the cut off marks for appointment in the category to which the petitioner belongs was 14 marks and the petitioner had also obtained 14 marks however, the petitioner was not offered appointment as by Memo No. 2026 dated 18.08.2011, appointment from the panel prepared pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2004 was stopped by the order of the Director General of Police. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the present proceeding, the respondents have taken a stand in the impugned order dated 31.03.2013 that since, the petitioner has obtained only 14 marks as against 17 marks which was the cut off marks for appointment in the category in which the petitioner has been seeking appointment, the petitioner was not offered appointment and thus, the stand taken by the respondent ­ State of Jharkhand is apparently contrary and therefore, the impugned order dated 31.03.2013 is liable to be interfered with.