NITESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.9.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1149 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, declining to issue direction to the respondents for appointment of the appellant to the post of Constable for the district of Chatra, pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2004. The brief fact of the case is that Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 for the post of Constable in the State of Jharkhand was published on 13.1.2004 and the appellant applied for the said post under General-Non-Home Guard Category having Roll No. 10368. Initially in the Master Chart, the height of the appellant was recorded as 178.5 cm and his educational qualification is Intermediate. Accordingly, the appellant was assigned 19 points (12 points for height and 7 points for educational qualification). The cut off marks for appointment as Constable in the General-Non-Home Guard Category was also 19 points. The appellant was Informed vide memo No. 359 dated 20.2.2009 to appear between 25.2.2009 to 15.3.2009 in the Police Line, Chatra along with his original certificate for verification, medical test and re-measurement. After the appellant appeared for the verification of the records, on re-measurement his height was found only 176.5 c.m., which is 2 cm lesser than his height recorded in Master Chart and as such the point of the appellant came down to 18 points and due to which the appellant was not appointed. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the appellant has filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1149 of 2012.

(2.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appointment pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 had been closed by a conscious decision dated 18.8.2010 taken by the respondents and in view of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed thereon, the appellant is not entitled to the direction sought for in the writ petition.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this intra-court appeal.