Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Navneet Kumar, J.
Pinki Mahato – Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No.189 of 2022
Decided On : 21-11-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court's decision was based on the comparison of marks secured by the appellants and the last selected candidates, which determined the appellants' eligibility.
Headnote:
Selection Process - Home Guard - Advertisement no.01/2017 - 7th pass for Rural Home Guard, 19 to 40 years age requirement - Three-tier selection process - Allegations of malpractice in selection process - Dismissal of writ petition for some petitioners - Direction to file representation for others - Appeal against dismissal - Comparison of marks secured by appellants and last selected candidates - Appellants found to have secured lesser marks - Appeal dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners applied for the post of Home Guard as per Advertisement No.01/2017. They alleged malpractice in the selection process and sought directions from the court. The writ petition was dismissed for some petitioners, while others were directed to file a representation before the respondent no.4.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidates, based on a comparison of marks. The court declined to pass a positive direction in favor of the appellants and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Allegations of malpractice in the selection process, disparity in the selection of candidates, and the appellants' eligibility based on marks secured.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the comparison of marks secured by the appellants and the last selected candidates, which demonstrated that the appellants had secured lesser marks.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the finding that the appellants had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidates.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3612 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed, so far as it relates to writ petitioner nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11, the appellant nos.1 to 7 herein.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the respondent nos.4 to 6 jointly have issued an advertisement no.01/2017 for the enrolment of Home Guard in the District vide advertisement dated 22.02.2017 in the Daily News Paper Prabhat Khabar, Seraikela.
4. The minimum qualification for selection and enrolment on the post of Home Guard has been prescribed as 7th pass for Rural Home Guard and the minimum age of the candidates must be 19 to 40 years. The final selection was to be made on the basis of three tier selection process.
5. The candidate was required to appear firstly in the physical test, secondly in the written test and thirdly in the physical fitness test with medical test.
6. The petitioners being eligible, in all respects, submitted application for enrolment/appointment on the post of Home Guard as advertised by Advertisement No.01/2017. The candidature of the petitioners were verified by the office of the respondent nos.4 to 6 and the petitioners were found to be eligible to participate in the selection process and therefore, the admit card was issued to the petitioners to appear in the physical and written test. The writ petitioners cleared the physical and written test.
7. The petitioners were declared successful in the physical and written test by the respondent no.6. The writ petitioners during the selection process have noticed that the respondents are not following the standard process of selection and the same may lead to mal-practice.
8. Thereafter, the writ petitioners had given representations on 04.11.2019 and 03.02.2020 to the respondent no.4 but no decision was taken on the representations of the petitioners.
9. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the respondent nos.4 to 6, have not conducted the selection process in just and proper manner.
10. In rural area, the total vacancy was for 411 Home Guard and in Urban area, the vacancy was for 259 Home Guards but in Rural area, the 411 candidates were called for final medical test and document verification. But, in urban area, only 52 candidates were called for final selection process out of 259 vacancy.
11. It is the further case of the appellants that the respondents have declared those candidates successful, who have even not participated in the selection process. Even the candidates having lesser marks than the appellants have been called for medical test and document verification.
12. It appears from the factual aspect as per the pleading made in the writ petition as referred hereinabove that the appellants-petitioners who have not been selected along with writ petitioner nos.4, 10 and 12, namely, Santosh Gorai, Sachin Gope and Samant Mahato (the proforma respondents herein) respectively, have approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3612 of 2020 seeking therein the following prayers:-
“(a) For issuance of direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to pass reasoned order upon the representation of the petitioners and 03.02.2020 (Annexure-4) and dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure-6), as the persons/candidates declared successful have scored less marks then the petitioners are selected and called for medical and document verification illegally.
(b) For issuance of direction directing the respondent No. 4 to show cause as to how without any rule the advertisement no
