Skip to content


Alina Hansda Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided On
AppellantAlina Hansda
RespondentState of Jharkhand and Ors
Excerpt:
.....of by this common order.2. heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the state.3. petitioners, in these writ applications are claiming appointment as constables in police, in view of the selection process with respect to advertisement no.3 of 2007, relating to selection of constables in the districts of jamtara, deoghar and dumka. the petitioners had appeared in the selection process, in which 445 candidates were selected including the petitioners. some irregularities were found in the selection process with respect to 174 candidates. an order was passed on 30.7.2009 by the deputy inspector general of police (personnel), -3- jharkhand, keeping the case of 174 candidates in abeyance pending enquiry, and the rest 271 candidates were ordered to be allowed to join......
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2805 of 2011 with W.P.(S) No.4942 of 2014 with W.P.(S) No.5737 of 2014 with W.P.(S) No.5798 of 2015 In W.P.(S) No.2805 of 2011 Alina Hansda ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand.

3. The Home Secretary, Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Ranchi. ….. Respondents In W.P.(S) No.4942 of 2014 1. Kaloni Baski 2. Badree Narayan Ray 3. Selestin Murmu 4. Fransis Hansda 5. Babu Lal Mirdha 6. Krishna Hansda 7. Mohan Das 8. Sonaram Kishku 9. Waynath Hembrom 10. Devid Murmu 11. Ram Prasad Rajak 12. Hemant Kumar Singh 13. Surendra Singh 14. Lalita Hansda 15. Budhray Marandi 16. Sumendra Soren 17. Raj Kumar Rajak 18. Ram Sundar Marandi 19. Suniram Tudu 20. Dinesh Kishku 21.Smt. Dular Soren 22. Manoj Kumar Ray 23. Chhunu Murmu 24. Stephan Murmu 25. Pawin Soren 26. Manwel Hembrom 27. Palem Murmu 28. Charlesh Murmu 29. Binod Marandi 30. Ramesh Murmu 31. Sriram Soren 32. Sundar Murmu 33. Khristopher Soren 34. Surendra (Lohra) Maraiya 35. Dinesh Marandi 36. Jitan Hembrom ..... Petitioners In W.P.(S) No.5737 of 2014 1. Binod Hansda 2. Sunatan Soren @ Sonatan Soren 3. Sailen Soren -2- 4. Srimati Soren 5. Nilesh Marandi 6. Parmeshwar Tudu 7. Subasten Hansda 8. Shyam Tudu 9. Sundri Marnadi 10. Sanatan Kisku 11. Bimal Kumar Tudu 12. Raja Ram Tudu ….. Petitioners In W.P.(S) No.5798 of 2015 1. Bablu Tudu 2. Suresh Hembrom 3. Mahesh Baski 4. Kaleshwar Hembrom …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand.

3. The Home Secretary, Jharkhand.

4. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Ranchi.

5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana, Dumka.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Dumka.

7. The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar.

8. The Superintendent of Police, Jamtara.

9. The District Welfare Officer, Dumka.

10. The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj.

11. The Superintendent of Police, Pakur.

12. The Superintendent of Police, Godda. …... Respondents [ in W.P.(S) Nos. 4942 of 2014 , 5737 of 2014 and 5798 of 2015 ] ----- ------ --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA For the Petitioners : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar Sinah, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, AAG ----- 9/5.09.2016 Since all these writ applications have been filed for the same relief, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

3. Petitioners, in these writ applications are claiming appointment as constables in Police, in view of the selection process with respect to advertisement No.3 of 2007, relating to selection of constables in the districts of Jamtara, Deoghar and Dumka. The petitioners had appeared in the selection process, in which 445 candidates were selected including the petitioners. Some irregularities were found in the selection process with respect to 174 candidates. An order was passed on 30.7.2009 by The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), -3- Jharkhand, keeping the case of 174 candidates in abeyance pending enquiry, and the rest 271 candidates were ordered to be allowed to join. However, it is the case of the petitioners that prior thereto an order had already been passed on 5th July 2008 by the State Government in Home Department, canceling the selection process.

4. Be that as it may. The matter came before this Court by way of different writ applications filed by some selected candidates in WP(S) Nos.4857 of 2009, 4838 of 2009 and in 4852 of 2009. In those writ applications, the counter affidavit had been filed by the State, stating that there were irregularities in the selection process and accordingly, the State Government had decided to give a chance to all the selected candidates to reappear in the physical and written tests to be held again, and if they had crossed the age limit, age relaxation shall also be granted to them, so that they may not have to face competition from outsiders, but they had to face competition from within the selected candidates. Relying upon the said counter affidavit, this Court, by order dated 21 st May 2010 disposed of those writ applications directing the State of Jharkhand to conclude the entire process of selection, including taking re-examination of physical as well as written test of all the selected candidates for the post of Constable for the three districts as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of sixteen weeks. It was directed that within the aforesaid period, the tests would be taken, result would be published and whole selection process would be completed up to the appointment.

5. It is the case of the respondent State that pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the fresh selection process of all the selected candidates was taken again and the candidates selected therein have already appointed and the selection process has been completed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner of WP(S) No.2805 of 2011 could not get any notice of the fresh selection process and she has been illegally debarred from entering into the selection process. However, it is admitted that the petitioners of the other writ applications had appeared in the fresh selection process, but they have not been selected. -4- 7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that since the entire selection process has been completed after giving opportunity to all the selected candidates to appear in the fresh selection process, no further relief can be granted to the petitioners.

8. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that in view of the irregularities in the selection process, by order dated 21.5.2010 passed in WP(S) Nos.4857 of 2009, 4838 of 2009 and in 4852 of 2009, this Court, in view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, had directed the State government to undertake whole process of selection including taking re-examination of physical as well as written tests of all the selected candidates for the post of Constable for the districts of Jamtara, Deoghar and Dumka. In compliance of the said order, the selection process was undertaken again, in which all the petitioners, except the petitioner in WP(S) No.2805 of 2011, re-appeared, but they could not succeed in the selection process. The selected candidates have been appointed and the selection process has been completed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner of WP(S) No.2805 of 2011 could not get any notice for appearing in the re-selection process, cannot be accepted, as all the other candidates had appeared in the selection process and they were either selected or not selected, pursuant to the fresh selection process. The fact remains that the appointment process, pursuant to the advertisement No.3 of 2007 has already been closed. The petitioners now cannot claim for being appointed constables, once they have already declared unsuccessful in the selection process, which was taken again pursuant to the order passed by this Court, or they did not appear in the said selection process.

9. There is no merit in these writ applications and all these four writ applications are accordingly, dismissed. (H. C. Mishra, J) R.Kumar


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //