SHAMBHU NATH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.9.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6357 of 2012 SHAMBHU NATH MEHTA V/S STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS, 2013 4 JLJR 264, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition declining to issue any direction upon the respondents to appoint the appellant on the post of Constable. Pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2004, the appellant applied for the post of Constable under the category B.C. Home Guard having roll No. 2848. The appellant obtained 14 points/marks (7 for height and 7 for educational qualification). The duration of the Home Guard training of the appellant was from 17.3.2004 to 6.5.2004 and on completion of the training the Home Guard training certificate was issued to the appellant on 6.5.2004. The appellant thus started/completed Home Guard training after submission of the application. Hence, the candidature of the appellant was treated as BC Non-Home Guard category. The cut-off marks/points for appointment in BC Non-Home Guard category is 17 marks, whereas the appellant obtained only 14 points. Hence, the claim of the appellant has not been considered for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement. The grounds for rejection was also communicated, vide memo No. 4417 dated 18.12.2012 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Koderma.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the appellant filed writ petition. Learned Single Judge held that if the appellant was inclined to participate for selection of a constable under the advertisement in Home Guard category, he was required to furnish certificate of Home Guard training at the time of making his application by the cut-off date. Learned Single Judge further held that the cut-off date for making the application under Advertisement No. 1/2004 was 15.2.2004 and the appellant undergone training, which started from 17.3.2004 and was completed on 6.5.2004, much after the cut-off date and further held that the appellant had not even started training of Home Guard by the said cut-off date in terms of the advertisement published by them. On those findings, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the impugned order, the appellant filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) We have heard Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.