The court emphasized the principle of fairness and natural justice in the selection process and reinstatement of the respondent-petitioners.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Roshan, J. - All these appeals arise out of common judgment dated 12.08.16 passed by the learned Single Judge in batch of cases filed by the respondent-petitioners for quashing the revised result of different posts pursuant to the Advertisement dated 08.08.2009 and for quashing the order passed by the Appellant-State pertaining to removal from their services in purported exercise of power under Rule 668 (Ka) of the Jharkhand Police Manual.

2. The facts of the case is that an advertisement was published in the local newspaper inviting applications from eligible candidates being Advertisement No.1 of 2008 for appointment of Sub-Inspector/Sergeant and Company Commander. Clause-7 of the Advertisement stipulates that the candidates opting for Sub-Inspector/Sergeant/Company Commander have to indicate their preference. Clause-9 of the said Advertisement lays down the physical eligibility criteria for the posts, whereby the post of Sub-Inspector and Company Commander was the same, while the physical eligibility criteria for sergeant was more rigorous. Clause-13 of the Advertisement stipulates that inter se seniority of two candidates having scored same marks shall be decided on the basis of their performance in the written examination. The respondent-petitioners had been issued admit cards in which their preferences mentioned for the post of Sub-Inspector, Company Commander and Sergeant. The respondent-petitioners as per their preference and on the basis of their performances were selected and appointed in different category. It has been stipulated in the appointment letter that the respondent-petitioners would be sent for training for one year, which may be extended or curtailed. It was also indicated that the respondent-petitioners shall be on probation for two years and if their services are found unsatisfactory, they would be removed. It was further stipulated in the letter of appointment of the respondent-petitioners that if the candidates were found engaged in any misconduct, their services could be terminated without any show cause notice and similarly, if they had furnished any wrong or misleading information, then also, their services shall be terminated. After the appointment of the respondent-petitioners on different posts, an inquiry had been conducted in relation to their selection on the ground that the erstwhile Chairman of the Selection Committee, headed by the Director General of Police, had made selection on the basis of preference and not on merit. Thereafter, a decision had been taken to rectify earlier selection list and to revise the same. In pursuance of the decision of the State Government, a committee was constituted headed by the Director General of Police to go into the entire aspect of the matter and come to the finding of any illegality or irregularity committed in the preparation of the merit list and also come out with a revised merit list. Since the Committee found certain lacunae in the preparation of the merit list, by virtue of the revised merit list, 42 candidates including the respondent-petitioners were recommended to be removed from service and in their places, 43 other persons, in order of merit, have been recommended to be appointed.

3. After publication of the revised result and decision to remove the respondent petitioners, show cause notices were served upon them and they were removed from their services in purported exercise of power under Rule 668 (Ka) of the Police Manual, and consequently 43 persons have been appointed as per the revised merit list. This led to the respondent-petitioners to move this Hon''ble Court for quashing the revised result and for quashing the order passed by the Appelant-State pertaining to removal from their services

4. The Hon''ble Single Judge vide common order dated 12.08.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1562 of 2014 and analogous cases inter-alia pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of termination of service of the respondent-petitioner