| |
CDJ 2026 Jhar HC 022
|
| Court : High Court of Jharkhand |
| Case No : W.P.(S) No. 1104 of 2022 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN |
| Parties : Kamal Nayan Tiwari Versus The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Ranchi & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Shadab Bin Haque, Ankit Apurva, Rahul Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondents: Apoorva Singh, AC to SC (Mines)-II, Nipun Bakshi, Shubham Sinha, Uttam Kr. Gupta, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 05-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Comparative Citation;
2026 JHHC 98, |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.
3. Summary:
The petitioner, an ex‑serviceman, sought cancellation of the appointment of Ex‑Hawaldar Yogendra Kumar and his own appointment as Peon, alleging that the merit list was prepared improperly. He claimed that selection should be based solely on written‑exam marks, contending that other candidates with lower written marks were appointed due to interview/skill‑test scores, which he argued were not applicable. The court examined the merit list and noted that the petitioner scored 29 in the written exam and 27.33 in the skill test, totaling 56.33, and was placed lower than other candidates who had higher or equal aggregate scores. Two other candidates with higher or equal written marks (30 and 29) were also not selected, and there were only two vacancies. The petitioner failed to establish a superior claim over these candidates. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed to cancel the appointment of Ex-Hawaldar Yogendra Kumar, and appoint the petitioner in his place. He has further prayed to set aside the merit list, which has been prepared pursuant to Advertisement bearing No. N.B. 815/2019, for the post of Peon. He also claims consequential benefits.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and others being Ex-servicemen, were eligible to be appointed in the State of Jharkhand in Class-IV Post. An Advertisement was also published in the year 2019 for the purpose of rehabilitating the Ex- servicemen by giving them appointment in Class-IV Post. The petitioner applied for the same and as per him he was successful as he had obtained 29 marks out of 50 marks in the written examination.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contended that all the other candidates who have been appointed, have obtained lesser marks than the petitioner in the written examination, but the respondents appointed those two persons considering the total marks which they had obtained in written examination and interview. He further contended that that since the State Government has done away with the process of interview, the respondents could not have interviewed the petitioner and assign mark for interview to select the candidates, who normally obtained lesser marks than the petitioner in the written examination. He also submitted that no marks could have been given in interview or in skill test, rather the appointment should be based solely on the marks obtained in written examination.
5. After going through the tabulation chart (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), I find that the name of this petitioner is reflected at serial No.13. It is true that the petitioner has obtained 29 marks in the written examination but in the skill test he was granted 27.33 marks, thus his total marks is 56.33 and his candidature was kept reserved, as there are other candidates who had obtained more marks in aggregate that the petitioner.
6. Even if the argument of petitioner’s counsel is accepted then there are two other candidates namely Ex-Lance Nayak Thakur Mahaveer Singh (serial No.25) and Ex-Hawaldar Sunil Marandi (serial No.33) who were also not selected in spite of obtaining 30 marks and 29 marks respectively in the written examination.
7. In this case, one person (at serial No.25) has obtained more marks than the petitioner and another person (at serial No.33) has obtained equal marks to that of the petitioner in the written examination.
8. Admittedly, there were two vacancies. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the claim of the petitioner is better than the aforesaid two candidates who are placed in serial Nos.25 and 33. Thus, in fact when there are only two posts which were to be filled up and the petitioner could not establish a better claim than the other two unselected candidates who have obtained 30 and 29 marks in the written examination, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
|
| |
