SAHEB RAM MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is said to have participated in an exercise for recruitment of Constable for the District of Bokaro under Advertisement No. 3 of 2007 from the category of Home Guard being a candidate under OBC category. According to the petitioner, he got 12 points while the last selected candidate under OBC category fetched 13 points. Under the Right to Information Act, he has been informed that there are 37 vacant seats which have been carried over to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2010 for the recruitment of Constable for the same District. Therefore, according to the petitioner when under the same advertisement, candidates who have obtained less than 13 points have been appointed in other Districts, the respondents are not justified in refusing to lower down the cut of points from 13 for the appointment of the petitioner, when admittedly vacancies are existing. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that cadre of Constable is unified in the State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that exercise for selection has been carried either in the one District or a group of Districts under the Advertisement No. 3 of 2007 in which the petitioner participated and got 12 points. In that particular District in category of Home Guard & OBC category, amongst the persons who have been selected, the last selected candidate fetched 13 points. It is also stated that even as per the master chart prepared, petitioner has been placed at serial No. 304 in the merit list and there are 42 candidates who are senior to him i.e. having higher point who could have been appointed if vacant posts were to be filled up. In any case the said vacant posts have been carried over to Advertisement No. 1 of 2010, while the petitioner is seeking appointment under Advertisement No. 3 of 2007 in which the whole process has come to an end. The petitioner, therefore, does not have a case for appointment under the said advertisement No. 3 of 2007 and cannot allege any discrimination.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the relevant materials on record, in the first place, the present writ petition appears to be suffering from delay and laches as the recruitment exercise was conducted under Advertisement No. 3 of 2007 where after in 2010 another advertisement was issued by the respondents for recruitment to the same post of Constable and the writ petition has been filed in 2013 without any proper explanation for the delay. On the other hand, it appears that amongst the persons who got selected under OBC Home Guard category, the cut off marks is 13 while the petitioner fetched only 12 points. As per the stand of the respondents, it is evident that if the said 37 vacant posts were to be filled up, petitioner's case could not have been considered as there were 42 candidates above him from his category. The petitioner, therefore cannot allege discrimination in the exercise for recruitment which was made District-wise or for a group of Districts under the said advertisement and each Districts had separate Selection Board. The candidates were required to apply for a particular District in which they intended to participate and the petitioner also appeared and participated in the recruitment exercise in the District of Bokaro. In such circumstances, on objective consideration of all the relevant grounds raised by the petitioner, no case is made out by the petitioner for interference in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.