Tuleshwar Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2216 of 2021 Tuleshwar Singh S/o Mukdev Singh, Aged About 35 Years Posted As Nagar Sainik, Nagar Sena, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) R/o Village Dedari, Post Dedari, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Director General Of Police, Head Quarter Raipur, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Assistant Inspector General Of Police (Selection) For Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4.

Superintendent Of Police, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For State :

Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 11/06/2021 1.

The challenge in the present writ petition seems to be the recruitment to the post of Constable in the Police Department in District Surajpur under the District Police Force Constable Selection Process, 2017-18. 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been deliberately left out from the recruitment process arbitrarily in contravention to the Rules governing the field. 3.

At this juncture, the learned State counsel submits that he has instructions to submit that the petitioner herein was found disqualified at the first screening of physical examination itself, therefore the

petitioner cannot be considered in the subsequent recruitment process. The learned State counsel submits that for a candidate belonging to the reserved category, the minimum marks required for clearing the physical examination is 50 and the petitioner in the instant case has scored only 43 marks and thus he stands disqualified. 4.

Accepting the contention of the learned State counsel who submits on instructions, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has failed in the screening of candidates at the physical examination itself, the challenge by the petitioner to the subsequent recruitment process is of no consequence, so far as the petitioner is concerned, as he in any case would not be entitled for consideration of the same in the light of his failing in the physical examination. 5.

The writ petition therefore, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved