(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner, a candidate for appointment as Driver Constable under Adv. no. 1/09 from General Non-Home Guard Category, could not be appointed despite scoring cut-off marks of 40, earmarked for the same category as some person elder in age was recommended as per rules governing cases of tie. As per information provided under R.T.I through letter no. 219 dated 9th January, 2013 by Sergeant Major, 1st, Police Centre, Ranchi, in General Non-Home Guard Category, there were 33 vacant posts and 31 persons submitted their joining. A total number of 200 posts were advertised for recruitment of Driver Constable under Jharkhand Jaguar and Ranchi District Force. As per same information under R.T.I., 2 posts in Non-Home Guard General Category remained vacant. The panel was prepared under the said recruitment exercise on 14th April, 2012 which is a part of the Interlocutory Application no. 2485 of 2015 obtained under RTI. It is true that no second merit-list was published within a period of 6 months as per the provisions of Rule 663(d) of Police Manual and also the Notification no. 330 dated 12th December, 2001.
(2.) Petitioner therefore came aggrieved before this Court by way of instant writ petition preferred on 23rd March, 2013 i.e., within one year period of preparation of panel claiming that the respondents should be directed to fill up the remaining vacancies of Driver Constable and appoint him as such as he was a successful candidate in all examinations, test etc.
(3.) On a previous date, the respondents were specifically asked to reply as to whether any final decision in the matter of closure of selection process for appointment of Driver Constables under the same Adv. no. 1/09 have been taken or whether any decision has been taken to declare the second merit-list to fill up unfilled vacancies under the said advertisement. The Senior Superintendent of Police had sought guidelines as per Annexure-B letter dated 20th March, 2013 from the Police Headquarter.