Anil Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Others

Ajay Kr. Tripathi, J.—Petitioner was a candidate for appointment on the post of a constable. He was not appointed and his claim was rejected. Therefore, he moved the High Court seeking a direction that since he had qualities on all other parameters, there is no reason why his selection should not be allowed by the respondents. Learned counsel representing the State seems to be correct in the objection taken that the foundation for rejection of the claim of the petitioner was laid by the petitioner himself. Petitioner had annexed all the documents in support of his caste showing himself to belong to BC, but he claimed benefit of E.B.C. as the petitioner filled Code ''3'' which related to EBC whereas the petitioner belonged to category ''4'' meant for the BC.

Stand taken by the petitioner is that since he had annexed document showing himself to belong BC category, the Central Selection Board ought to have treated him to belong to BC category.

It is not the duty of the Commission to make correction or any interpolation or changes in the declarations which are made by a candidate in the applications which are filled by them. It will be giving leeway to a lot of things, if such an argument is entertained or encouraged.

Every candidate, more so who is supposed to be literate, must know as to what declaration he is making and what is required to be filled up in the applications for consideration by the respondents because there were lacs of applications received and processed and there is no mechanism by which the selection body can scrutinize applications of such kind with the object of finding mistakes and give opportunity to the candidates at a subsequent stage after the result. Writ is dismissed.