State Of Jharkhand And Ors vs Balram Rai

Heard learned counsel for the State on the prayer for condonation of delay of 708 days in preferring the instant memo of appeal made through I.A.

No.5862/2018. We have also entertained arguments on merits of the challenge to the impugned judgment dated 28th June 2016 rendered in W.P.(S)

No.6440/2014 by the learned Single Judge on the part of the learned State counsel.

Briefly stated hereunder is the factual canvass of the case. Writ petitioner, an applicant for appointment on Class-IV post in the district of Dumka

under the panel prepared by the District Administration, Dumka was denied appointment despite having obtained 144 marks and the persons below

him having been appointed as well only on the ground that he had not appeared in the cycling test. On petitioner’s representation it was found that

he and one other candidate were shown to have failed in the cycling test but in the admit card they were shown as absent. In view of such

contradiction, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide order no.97/2012 dated 21st April 2012 constituted a Four Men Committee to inquire into the

matter. The committee submitted a report and also took the cycling test of the petitioner in which the petitioner was found to have passed. In spite

thereof he was not appointed. The selection committee meeting held on 6th September 2013 headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka took a

stand that since the petitioner had absented himself in the cycling test, the merit list prepared earlier was to be maintained. In these factual

backgrounds, learned Single Judge held as follows :-

“7. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, it is apparent that though there is dispute about the

petitioner appearing in the cycling test, but the fact remains that the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, had constituted a Four Men Committee which had

taken the cycling test of the petitioner and the petitioner had passed the cycling test. In that view of the matter, the respondent State now cannot

withdraw from the said stand and deny the appointment to the petitioner. Once the petitioner had successfully passed the cycling test before a duly

constituted Committee by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, the stand of the respondent State that the panel shall not be disturbed, cannot be

sustained in the eyes of law.

In view of the aforementioned discussion, the respondents, particularly respondent no.2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka is directed to appoint

the petitioner on a suitable Class-IV post in the district of Dumka, within a period of four months from today.

This writ application is accordingly, allowed with the direction as above.â€​

Learned counsel for the State has tried to explain that cycling test was taken again after the preparation of the panel, though undisputedly on the

orders of the Deputy Commissioner by the Four Men Committee. He is not in a position to over-come the findings of the learned Single Judge since

the retest was undertaken on account of an apparent contradiction when the applicant was found to have failed in cycling test along with one other

candidate, whereas the admit card showed him to be absent.

Learned Single Judge, therefore, opined that if petitioner had successfully passed the cycling test before a duly constituted committee, the stand of the

State that the panel shall not be disturbed, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The distinct findings on facts based on proper appreciation of the

case of the parties having been rendered by the learned Single Judge which the State in appeal has not been able to dislodge on any valid ground, there

are hardly any merit in the instant appeal.

Apart from that the delay condonation application also does not contain any proper explanation in preferring the instant memo of appeal after a huge

delay of 708 days.

We therefore are not inclined to condone the delay on such flimsy explanation. Otherwise also, having heard learned counsel for the State, we hardly

find any ground made out to interfere in the impugned order. The delay condonation application being I.A. No.5862/2018 is dismissed. Consequently,

the appeal is also dismissed. I.A. No.5863/2018 for stay is closed.