Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sujit Narayan Prasad, JJ.
Basant Kumar Mahto and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 7376, 7397, 7403 of 2019
Decided On : 10-03-2022
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Jharkhand State Police Sub Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Recruitment Rule, 2016 - Rule 9,23,24-A,24-A(11-B) - Power Of High Court to issue Certain Writs - Anticipated vacancies - Appointment to vacancies which admittedly arose after amendment - Revise panel already prepared - Whether rule which has been notified after conclusion of recruitment process can be made applicable from the date when advertisement has been issued for initiating the process of recruitment to fill up post of Constables - Whether selection would be made, in case of appointment to the vacancies which admittedly arose after amendment of Rules came into force, according to the amended Rules or in terms of Rule 9 read with Rules 23 and 24-A, as mentioned – Held, As has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission that selection has already been made in the year and since then, four years has already lapsed, it would not be apt for this Court to pass direction upon the State respondent to fill up the unfilled posts from the candidates who have declared unsuccessful on the basis of the prevalent rule which was invoked at the time of issuance of advertisement - Petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The similar issue fell for consideration in all these writ petitions, therefore, these matters have been listed together and have been heard and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The instant writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the direction has been sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of Clause-7 of the Notification contained in Memo No.4054 dated 19.07.2018, by which, the aforesaid notification has been made applicable prospectively and therefore, the petitioners have been deprived of the benefits of the amendment carried out by virtue of the aforesaid notification.
3. The facts leading to filing of these cases on behalf of the petitioner are that they had appeared for the limited examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, hereinafter referred to as “JSSC”, in pursuant to Advertisement No.09/2017 for filling up of the posts of constable.
4. The advertisement contains a condition about minimum qualifying marks to be scored in paper-II and paper-III in the OMR based examination for the various category, as referred herein :-
(ii) For SC/ST category candidate-45% in aggregate with a minimum score 40% in each paper-II & paper-III.
5. The Selecting Body, on the basis of the OMR based examination, had prepared merit list calling upon the number of candidates to participate in the physical test which has been decided to be three times of vacancy. Thereafter, the candidates who have been declared to be successful in the physical test, will have to appear before the Medical Board for the medical test.
6. According to the petitioners, the minimum qualifying marks as per the notification being notification no.252 dated 28.01.2016 in paper-II and paper-III in the OMR based examination for the various categories has been decided i.e.,
(ii) For SC/ST category candidate-45% in aggregate with a minimum score 40% in each paper-II & paper-III.
The examination was held on 26.11.2017 and the result was published on 10.02.2018. The vacancy position, as reflected in the advertisement is 1544. The petitioners claim to have fulfilled the requisite qualification to appear in the limited examination but could not qualify the OMR based examination, reason being that they have scored marks less than 50% under Clause-12(ii) of the advertisement and in consequence thereof, large number of vacancies remained unfilled. The authorities of the State of Jharkhand more particularly the Director General of Police had recommended for lowering down the cut off marks vide his letter dated 07.03.2018, taking into consideration, the large number of vacancies remained unfilled.
The recommendation has been made to carry out certain amendment in the Jharkhand State Police Sub Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Recruitment Rule, 2016 along with the recommendation to lower down the cut off marks.
The aforesaid proposal was sent before the Cabinet for its approval by the Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management. The proposal was to substitute the existing criteria pertaining to minimum qualification and reduce the same to 40%, 36.5%, 34% and 32% for General Category, BC, BC-I (Annx.-16), SC/ST/Women respectively.
The amendment has been carried out as contained in memo no. 4054 dated 19.07.2018 by reducing the minimum qualifying marks but the same was made prospectively.
7. According to the petitioners, the decision of the authority in making the aforesaid amendment of reducing the cut off marks from the prospective date is absolutely an arbitrary decision of the authority, taking into consideration the fact that after the candidates having been declared successful but large number of vacancies remained unfilled, therefore, desirability
Widening the field of eligibility, in view of an amendment in the Recruitment Rules, does not amount to changing the rules of the game in the midst of the selection process.
Point of Law : Selecting body does not have its right to alter the procedure for selection than what is prescribed under the relevant Service Rules, 2014 and Recruitment Rules, 2017.
The principle that candidates do not acquire a vested right to appointment but have a legitimate expectation to be evaluated according to the rules in effect at the time of their application, and tha....
Minimum qualifying marks must be obtained in each subject rather than an aggregate score; changes to recruitment criteria cannot be made after the process has commenced.
(1) Appointment – Even if relevant rules permit competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of recruitment process, same must be done at any time before relevant stage is reached.(2) Ap....
Selection criteria cannot be changed mid-recruitment process after exams and interviews; mandatory advertisement preference for postgraduates upheld, quashing revision that disadvantaged qualified ca....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
