BALESHWAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN response to an advertisement issued by the State of Jharkhand in the year 2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of constables in the Jharkhand Armed Police -8, the petitioner had submitted his application. After being allotted Roll number 8128, he was called upon to appear at the prescribed tests. He appeared at the test, which included measurement of his height and chest. He also possessed the requisite educational qualifications. He was declared successful in the entire tests and having thus come within the zone of consideration, a Call Letter was issued to him on 24.7.2005. In response to the Call Letter, he appeared before the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police -8 (Respondent No.5) but the Commandant did not accept his joining. Rather, his height was re -measured and recorded 1 centimeter less than what was recorded during the earlier measurement.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) ASSAILING the respondents' act of refusal to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly when the petitioner had appeared at the tests before the Board constituted for selection of candidates, the petitioner's height was measured at 168 centimeters and the corresponding marks based on the measurement of his height was accorded. On being fully satisfied that the petitioner possessed all the qualifications including educational qualification and the requisite physical standards, the Board had declared the petitioner as successful in the test and had issued appointment letter. The finding of the Board, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be called for reassessment by the Commandant. Referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Lalan Prasad Thakur vs. State of Bihar and Others vide C.W.J.C. No. 1398 of 1997, learned counsel submits that an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in the aforementioned case in which even after the Selection Board had assessed the measurement of height and other requisite qualifications and had declared the candidate as successful, a fresh physical verification of the candidate was conducted at the Police Lines by the concerned police officers when the candidate reported for joining duty and by such fresh physical verification the candidate was sought to be disqualified on the ground that the measurement of his height was different from what was earlier recorded by the Selection Board. This Court had held that in absence of any authority vested in him, the concerned senior police officer could not have conducted a fresh physical verification of the candidate at the time when he reported for joining, after the Selection Board had accorded its satisfaction that the candidate possessed the minimum requisite physical standards and other qualifications.