The main legal point established is that the plea for parity with appointed candidates is not applicable if the petitioner had not been appointed, and the court has the authority to quash an order if it is not proper and justified.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 2604 of 2021

1. In view of the office note, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, does not intend to press the instant interlocutory application, since, the office has pointed out that the appeal has been filed within time.

2. Considering the same, the instant interlocutory application is dismissed as not pressed.

L.P.A. No. 154 of 2021

3. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 01.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5033 of 2013 whereby and whereunder while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has refused to pass positive direction commanding upon the State to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on the post of Company Commander in terms of Advertisement No. 01/2008 but has given liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation for consideration of his case within a period of two months.

4. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under.

5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that an advertisement was issued by the respondent being Advertisement No. 01/2008 for appointment on the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, Sergeant and Company Commander (Home Guards). The writ petitioner finding himself to be eligible to apply for appointment on the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, Sergeant and Company Commander (Home Guards), applied.

6. Admit card was issued to the writ petitioner to appear in the physical test. The petitioner qualified for the minimum physical standard prescribed for Sub-Inspector of Police/Company Commander (Home Guards). After the petitioner was declared successful in the physical tests meant for the advertised posts, he has again been issued admit cards to appear in the written test. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the written test.

7. The result of the written tests was published on 03.03.2012. The minimum cut off marks which candidate was required to obtain in the written test to qualify for interview were fixed by the respondents category wise which are as follows:

8. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was issued admit card to appear in the interview. The petitioner appeared in the interview. The petitioner did well in the interview and therefore he was assured to be selected finally for the post advertised in accordance with the marks obtained by them.

9. However, the merit list was published by the respondents in which the name of the petitioner was not there.

10. Aggrieved with the merit list published by the respondent State, the writ petitioner moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5033 of 2013. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation for consideration of his case within a period of 2 months from the date of order and further directing the respondents to dispose of such representation within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of such representation.

11. It appears from the factual aspect that in terms of Advertisement No. 01/2008, applications were invited for filling up of the post of Sergeant, Company Commander (Home Guards) and Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner, claiming himself to be the aspirant, has made application for consideration on either of the posts, i.e. Sergeant or Company Commander or Sub-Inspector of Police and to that effect option has been furnished in the application. The application reflects that the Option No. 1 is for the post of Sub-Inspector while the Option No. 2 is for the Sergeant and Opti