Jharkhand High Court: The present petitions were filed by petitioners, who applied for the post of ‘Chowkidar’, for quashing the public notice whereby the merit list of selected candidates was declared as per ‘District-wise’ and not ‘Beat-wise’. The Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, CJ., and Rajesh Shankar, J., stated that from the language used in the Rules, 2015, it was clear that a ‘Chowkidar’ who was resident of a ‘Beat’ concerned could be appointed/transferred to another ‘Beat’ for a cogent reason. Further, the Court emphasized that the advertisement itself did not specify that the appointment on the post of ‘Chowkidar’ would be made ‘Beat-wise’ but the Rules, 2015 did stipulate that the appointment would be made ‘District wise’. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present petition.
Background
The office of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Koderma issued advertisement for the post of Grameen Chowkidar (‘Chowkidar’). The petitioners submitted their application forms with respect to their respective ‘Beats’ where they were residing. Thereafter, they were issued admit cards to appear in the written test and they accordingly appeared in the same.
The respondent-authorities published a consolidated list of candidates eligible for appearing in the physical test via public notice, whereby the candidates were shortlisted based on category-wise cut off marks for the entire district instead of shortlisting them ‘Beat-wise’. The names of the petitioners were not found in the list of the shortlisted candidates qualified for the physical test.
One of the petitioners along with several other candidates made their grievances through a common representation and on the same day, the respondent-authorities again came out with a revised list of shortlisted candidates via public notice. However, the said list was also published on the basis of category-wise cut-off marks for the entire district. The respondent-authorities conducted physical fitness of the shortlisted candidates, and a consolidated merit list of successful candidates was prepared based on total marks obtained.
The petitioners contended that Clause 9 of the Advertisement clearly prescribed that the applicants were to be permanent residents of their respective ‘Beat’ area against which they were submitting their applications. The result published on the basis of category-wise cut off marks for the entire district was arbitrary and discriminatory due to which, several ‘Beat’ areas were left without a ‘Chowkidar’ as there was only one vacancy advertised for each ‘Beat’ and the resident of a particular ‘Beat’ was not allowed to apply in other ‘Beats’.
Analysis and Decision
Considering Rules, 2015 and the advertisement concerned, the Court stated that the candidates had to be the permanent residents of that ‘Beat’ area for which they were submitting their applications. The Rules, 2015 stipulated that the appointment for the post of ‘Chowkidar’ had to be made ‘District-wise’ and the posting of the selected candidates was to be made within their residential ‘Beat’ area and normally transfer of any ‘Chowkidar’ would not be made. Further, for such appointments, district level reservation roster as determined by the State of Jharkhand from time to time, would be followed.
The Court clarified that the word “यथासंभव” would mean that the posting of ‘Chowkidar’ within the ‘Beat area’ was not mandatory, rather it was directory in nature and the word “सामान्यतः” made it directory. Thus, from the language used in the Rules, 2015, it was clear that a ‘Chowkidar’ who was resident of a ‘Beat’ concerned could be appointed/transferred to another ‘Beat’ for a cogent reason.
The Court observed that the Rules, 2015 stated that the appointment was to be made ‘District-wise’ and as such the petitioners were wrong in contending that the appointment should have been made ‘Beat-wise’ as otherwise also, the cadre of Chowkidar was district level. Further, the Court emphasized that the advertisement itself did not specify that the appointment on the post of ‘Chowkidar’ would be made ‘Beat-wise’ but the Rules, 2015 did stipulate that the appointment would be made ‘District wise’.
The Court stated that it was trite law that when literal meaning of a provision did not serve the purpose, then the purposive interpretation of such provision was to be made so as to avoid the absurdity. Thus, the Court held that the purpose behind incorporation of Clause 9 in the Advertisement was that the authorities would know about the ‘Beat’ of a particular candidate so that as far as possible, his/her appointment was to be made within his/her residential ‘Beat area’ or in the neighboring ‘Beat’ for smooth functioning of the duty of ‘Chowkidar’. The Court further stated that the interpretation of the Advertisement would be in consonance with the provisions of the Rules, 2015 and the same would also achieve the purpose behind it. On the contrary, if the interpretation of Clause 9 of the said Advertisement as suggested by the petitioners was accepted, it would lead to absurdity and would also be inconsistent with the provisions of the Rules, 2015.
With respect to the extent that Petitioner 3 had got 70% of the total marks in the written test and she was entitled to be called for physical test, the Court stated that it had been specifically stated by the respondents that the cut-off marks in percentage for the written examination was fixed as 80% and as such the petitioner did not qualify for physical test. The Court opined that merely on the ground that the said petitioner obtained more than the qualifying marks, she had no right to be called for the physical test since she could not secure the minimum cut-off marks.
Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.
[Pintu Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(S) No.1498 of 2025, decided on 19-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Rishabh Kaushal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II and Amrita Banerjee, AC to GP-I
