SISILIAY HEMBRAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly because of inaction on the part of the respondents, in not deciding the candidature of the present petitioner for the post of Lady Constable, despite the fact that the petitioner has cleared all the necessary required tests, which are taken by the respondents, as a selection procedure, including physical test and written test. It is also submitted vehemently by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the letter dated 28th April, 2007, at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, the Deputy Inspector General of Police is seeking instructions for the selection of the present petitioner that how many marks have been obtained by the petitioner in the written examination, because the present petitioner has already cleared physical test and the marks obtained by the present petitioner in the physical test reveals that she has secured higher marks than some other candidates. This is explicitly clear from Annexure 6.

(2.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the letter at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition is dated 28th April, 2007, the respondents are not deciding whether the petitioner is selected for the post of Constable or not. Several representations have also been filed by the present petitioner, as per Annexure series to the memo of petition, none of them has been replied or decided and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for getting direction upon the respondents to decide the representations, in accordance with law, considering the fact that the petitioner has already cleared the physical test examination and the respondents should also consider the fact that the present petitioner has appeared in the written test, which was only in the form of a small dictation in Hindi language as well as in Santhali language. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the belated stand, taken by the respondents, as per the counter affidavit, the petitioner is given the marks in the written examination as "failed". No marks have been allotted to the petitioner in the written examination.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid submissions and looking to the fact that the petitioner has already cleared the physical test, taken for the post of Constable, and also looking to the fact that the petitioner is already a matriculate certificate holder, wherein, Hindi was one of the subjects, and also looking to the arbitrary assessment of the written test by the respondents, without appreciating the fact that out of the dictations of two languages of one paragraph each, half of the written test is correct, and, therefore, the petitioner is logically entitled for 50% marks and there cannot be a passing standard of written test for a post of Constable, exceeding 50%, and also looking to the fact that no marks have been allotted to the written test and arbitrarily the word "fail" is written on the written test paper of the petitioner, and also looking to the fact that no standard has been fixed for passing or fail, I hereby quash and set aside the assessment by the respondents of the written test of the present petitioner, with a direction to reassess the marks, obtained by the petitioner at the written test. The word "fail" is used, as per the counter affidavit, upon the written test paper of the petitioner, which is absolutely an arbitrary action. "Fail" or "pass" is a consequence of the marks, obtained by a candidate. High ranking police officer, who has assessed the marks, obtained by the petitioner at the written test, ought to have given marks, so that the consequence of "pass" or "fail" can be decided. Straightway a candidate cannot be labelled as "failed" or "passed". Moreover, no standard of "pass" or "fail" having been prescribed or pronounced, in advance, such an action leads to absolute arbitrariness. Any candidate can be declared "pass" by such an arbitrary action or a deserving candidate can be declared "fail", if such an arbitrary and unguided powers are given to the assessing police officer and hence, I hereby quash and set aside such arbitrary assessment by the respondents of the written test of the present petitioner. However, looking to the contention, raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that no final decision has yet been taken upon the representation of the petitioner, which are at Annexure 5 series to the memo of petition, I hereby direct respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the present petitioner, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, or to treat this writ petition as a representation and I further direct that respondent no.3 will decide the same, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and looking to the enforceable government orders and also keeping in mind the aforesaid observations in the foregoing paragraphs of this order, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to her representative, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.