STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. ANIL KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions, in and by which the learned Single Judge has quashed the Clause in the Advertisement imposing a condition that a candidate will be allowed to apply from only one district and issued direction to the State of Jharkhand to consider the case of respondents -writ petitioners for appointment as Police Driver who were found disqualified on the ground that they applied for the post of Police Driver in more than one district.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these Letters Patent Appeals are that Palamau Range Police Recruitment Board invited applications for filling up the post of Police driver in three districts of Palamau Range, namely, Palamau (48 vacancies), Garhwa (60 vacancies) and Latehar (30 vacancies). In the Advertisement, a restriction/condition was stipulated to the effect that the applicant shall submit his/her application for only one district and in case of submission of application for more than one district, he/she shall be disqualified. As per the Declaration Form contained in the Format of the application, the candidates were to declare that they have submitted only one application for the particular district only against the advertisement and in case of finding anything incorrect the candidature and appointment can be cancelled without any notice.

(3.) ALL the writ petitioners/respondents participated in the physical test and also in the written examination and passed the examination. But all of them were disqualified on the ground that they have submitted applications for more than one district. Stating that they have secured marks more than cut off marks of the selected candidates in the respective district, the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, W.P(S) No.2228/2011 and other writ petitions, holding that no prejudice is caused to the State even if the writ petitioners have applied for two different districts especially when there is no rule prohibiting such type of application by a candidate. The learned Single Judge further held that such condition cannot be imposed in the public advertisement and that it tantamounts to arbitrary condition. The learned Single Judge held that valuable rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 have been taken away by inserting a condition in the advertisement which has no backing or background of any rule or regulation nor any executive instruction.