VIKRAMKANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE controversy in both these writ applications relate to appointment on the post of Constable in the Bihar Police under advertisement no. 1 of 2004. The crux of the controversy in both the applications is with regard to grant of 5 extra marks to the petitioners for N.C.C. (B) certificate as provided for in the advertisement. An advertisement was issued on 8.2.2004 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Constable. The last date fixed under the advertisement for submission of applications was 25.8.2004. The advertisement required the applicants to enclose attested copy of necessary certificates. It further provided that all successful candidates at the time of their appointment shall produce the originals before the Selection Committee. It inter alia provided for a written examination. The selection process did not materialize in time for reasons not attributable to the petitioners. This led to a fresh advertisement on 11.8.2004 in continuation. The latter advertisement provided that there shall be no written examination; that those who had applied in response to the earlier advertisement (8.2.2004) need not apply again and that their roll number shall remain the same as allotted to them under the original application. The last date for submission of applications was 25.8.2004. The petitioners obtained their N.C.C. (B) certificate on 21.6.2004 and 17.6.2004. Armed with the original certificates, they appeared for the physical selection test on 26.8.2006 and 31.8.2006 respectively. Both the petitioners came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 8601 of 2007 and CWJC No. 7788 of 2007. A Bench of this Court on 30.7.2007 noticed the submission that similarly situated persons had been given weightage for N.C.C.(B) certificates, discriminating, the petitioners. The respondents were directed to file a comprehensive counter affidavit. In the meantime, if vacant posts were available as was submitted on behalf of the petitioners, it would be kept vacant for the petitioners if they were ultimately found eligible. The writ applications came to be disposed finally on 3.10.2007, on basis of the representations stated to have been filed by the petitioners. It was again noticed that if the benefit of N.C.C. (B) certificate had been allowed to others, there is no discernible reason as to why the same certificate shall not be considered favourably in the case of the petitioners. In CWJC No. 16285 of 2007 the representations came to be rejected by orders impugned dated 26.10.2007 and 30.10.2007 at Annexures 12 & 13 respectively while in the latter case it came to be rejected by order dated 26.10.2007 at Annexure -13.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State opposing the applications submitted that the attested copies of the necessary certificates were required to be appended to the application. The last date for submission of the application was specified in the advertisement dated 8.2.2004 as 22.2.2004. The petitioners had not appended their N.C.C. (B) certificate along with their application. It was for this reason that their applications were rejected as not being according to the stipulation of the advertisement. It was next submitted that an administrative decision had been taken on 14.9.2006 as appended at Annexures -A and B to the counter affidavit not to accept such applications. This decision was prompted as several such cases had surfaced. The representations of the petitioners have now been rejected by a reasoned order which calls for no interference.