IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J., Arun Kumar Rai, J.
Sunil Tudu, s/o late Lakshman Tudu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 748 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 872 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 899 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 912 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 913 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 914 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 933 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 999 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.1029 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 1036 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.1069 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.1090 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 1091 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 1113 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.1477 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 2201 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.6668 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 6672 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 6853 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 6939 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 7123 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 7195 of 2016, W.P.(S) No. 118 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 197 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 1567 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 2397 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 3075 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 4111 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 3075 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 4387 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 5140 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 5397 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 6033 of 2017, W.P.(S) No. 1246 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 1344 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 4111 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 5833 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 5844 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 6660 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 6702 of 2018, W.P.(S) No. 445 of 2019, W.P.(S) No. 1720 of 2019, W.P.(S) No. 1990 of 2019, W.P.(S) No. 3413 of 2019, W.P.(S) No. 4143 of 2019, W.P.(S) No. 4241 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 4990 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 117 of 2023, W.P.(S) No. 96 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 205 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 430 of 2024
Decided On : 26-04-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Jharkhand Rajya Police Appointment Rules, 2014 - Validity of recruitment rules challenged by Home Guards on grounds of ultra vires and violation of Jharkhand Police Manual - Court held that the Recruitment Rules are valid and do not suffer from arbitrariness. (Paras 39, 40)
(B) Recruitment Process - The Court emphasized that the employer has the discretion to set qualifications and criteria for appointments, and mere dissatisfaction with the rules does not warrant judicial intervention. (Paras 33, 39)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, Home Guards, challenged the Jharkhand Rajya Police Appointment Rules, 2014, claiming they were ultra vires and violated existing statutory rules under the Jharkhand Police Manual, seeking inclusion in the merit list for Constable positions.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the Recruitment Rules of 2014 valid, emphasizing the employer's discretion in setting recruitment criteria and the absence of arbitrariness in the rules.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the Recruitment Rules of 2014 and the petitioners' claims for inclusion in the merit list based on prior qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Recruitment Rules of 2014 are valid and do not violate constitutional provisions, affirming the employer's authority to set recruitment criteria.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the framing of the “Jharkhand Rajya Police Appointment Rules, 2014” [“Jharkhand Rajya Police Appointment Rules, 2014” shall be referred to as ‘the Recruitment Rules of 2014’] superseding the provisions under the Jharkhand Police Manual for the selection and appointment of the Police Constables.
2. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are Home Guards, who can be broadly divided under three categories viz. (a) those who did not qualify for the Mains examination (b) those who were called for the Medical and Fitness tests and (c) those who are seeking age-relaxation. All of them have questioned the power of the State of Jharkhand and the legal foundation for framing the Recruitment Rules of 2014 on the ground that the Jharkhand Police Manual occupies the field of the appointment and selection of the Constables. A large number of the petitioners participated in the last recruitment exercises but could not make it to the final selection list and now they seek to challenge the appointment of the Constables on the ground that the recruitment exercises in the past were conducted in breach of the statutory provisions of the Jharkhand Police Manual. For the sake of brevity, we shall briefly refer to the writ pleadings which are as follows:
(ii) The Bengal Police Manual was issued in 1884.
(iii) In 1912, the Bengal Police Manual was re-named as Bihar and Orissa Police Manual.
(iv) The Bihar Police Manual, 1978 was issued.
(v) The Cabinet of the Government of Bihar approved the revised Police Manual in December 1977.
(vi) The State of Jharkhand was created on 15th November 2000.
(vii) On 12th November 2001, the Bihar Police Manual was adopted with certain amendments.
(viii) The petitioners are working as the Home Guards in the State of Jharkhand.
(ix) Advertisement No.4 of 2015 was issued on 1st May 2015 inviting applications from eligible Home Guards for appointment to the post of Police Constable.
(x) Advertisement No.4 of 2015 laid down the procedure for appointment by holding the examination in three phases viz. (a) preliminary examination (b) main examination and (c) physical and medical tests.
(xi) The total number of posts advertised was 7272 out of which the appointment to the Jharkhand District Police Force was to be made on 6422 posts and for the Jharkhand Armed Police Force on 850 posts.
(xii) According to the petitioners, 3631 posts were earmarked for Home Guards.
(xiii) Under Advertisement No.4 of 2015, there is a provision for the trained Home Guards registered with the Jharkhand State that 50% posts shall be earmarked for them; the remaining 50% of posts shall be filled up by non-Home Guard candidates.
(xiv) Later, Advertisement No.8 of 2017 was issued and appointments of the Constables have been made.
3. In 1st set of writ petitions[W.P(S) No. 6 of 2017 & analogous cases are hereinafter referred to as 1st set of writ petitions], the petitioners contend that the Recruitment Rules of 2014 cannot be enforced and are ultra-vires to the Constitution of India. This submission is premised on the ground that there already exists the statutory Rules for appointment of the Constables which were framed in exercise of the powers under Sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act, 1861. These petitioners seek to challenge a part of the final result based on the Mains examination on the ground that their exclusion in the final result was wholly illegal and arbitrary because they had already qualified in the Preliminary test. Consequent upon the granting of the aforesaid prayers, the petitioners are seeking permission to appear in the Physical/Medical test for being considered for appointment to the post of Constable under 50 percent reserved seats for Home Guards. In short, Sunil Tudu has approached the Court with the following prayers:
A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka
Ajay Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa
Ami Lal Bhat (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan
D.R. Yadav v. R.K. Singh: (2003) 7 SCC 110
Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd.
Govt. of A.P. v. N. Subbarayudu
Hathising Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Madan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission
Manak Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi
Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala
Raichurmatham Prabhakar v. Rawatmal Dugar
State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
The Jharkhand Rajya Police Appointment Rules, 2014 are valid and do not violate constitutional provisions, affirming the employer's authority to set recruitment criteria.
Point of Law : Service Law - Appointment of Sub Inspectors - Selection Process - There is no provision in Rules of 2015 to even remotely suggest that method of recruitment would even apply to those c....
Post of Police constable – Direct recruitment - To lower respective category-wise merit and accord selection to them on the vacant posts of Constable (Civil Police/PAC) – Held, Such situation eventua....
The authority of the Commission to modulate the method of recruitment within the powers granted by the Act and Rules.
The Government has power to grant relaxation in upper age limit on its own motion or upon getting intimation from any genuine or bona fide source can grant such relaxation subject to the condition th....
Rule 19.14 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which provides for the selection of Constables for the Lower School Course on the basis of a competitive test, is not violative of Article 16 of the Const....
(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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.