RANJEET KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions the Petitioners are the candidates who have applied pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-1) for appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police. Their. grievance is that though they had competed in the physical tests, they are not being permitted to take the written examination on the ground that they do not possess the requisite educational qualification, as prescribed in the advertisement.

(2.) The facts, not in dispute, are that the Petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant to Annexure-1. Annexure-1 is the advertisement which lays down the conditions of eligibility. The educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement is graduation from a recognised University or equivalent educational qualification recognised by the Government of Bihar There are other conditions of eligibility, such as physical fitness etc. The procedure to be followed, is that the candidates will first be subjected to the physical fitness test and if found to be fit, they have to take the written examination. Thereafter, an interview is to be held 3. The advertisement invites applications from qualified candidates and fixes the last date for receipt of such applications, which is 12th August, 1993. Obviously, therefore terms of the advertisement the candidate must be qualified in all respects on the date of the application. In any event, they must possess such qualification on the last date on which the application may be submitted namely, 12th August, 1993. We have no doubt that any candidate who may acquire such qualification later than 12th August, 1993 shall not be eligible in terms of the advertisement. In a similar case, we have taken the same view, namely, in C.W.J.C. No. 8685/93, disposed of on 13-1-1994. Our view also finds support from a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in 1993 (2) P.L.J.R. 304. We, therefore, hold that the candidates who apply for appointment as Sub-Inspector must possess the requisite qualification on 12th August, 1993, which is the last date for making the application.

(3.) It was faintly urged before us that if the applications filed by the Petitioners were entertained by the authorities, and they were permitted to take part in the physical fitness test, they should not be prevented from taking the written examination on the ground that they do not possess the necessary educational qualification. We are not prepared to go to the extent of holding that any special equity has arisen in favour of the Petitioners merely because their applications have been entertained and they were permitted to take physical examination test. We are also of the view that no question of promissory estoppel arises in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Petitioners are found to be not qualified for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police, their applications can be rejected at any stage, and even if they are appointed, such appointment may be cancelled on the ground that they did not possess the requisite educational qualification. The argument based on equity and promissory estoppel must, therefore, be rejected.