State of Jharkhand vs Md. Muslim Ansari

D.N. Patel A.C.J.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by respondent no.1 in W.P. (S) No. 7753 of 2012, which was preferred by present respondent no.1

in the Letters Patent Appeal. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 1st August, 2013 and, hence,

original respondent no.1 has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Notice issued by this Court has been served upon respondent no.1. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent no.1.

Reasons:

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the writ petition was

preferred by respondent no.1 for getting appointment on the post of Driver-Police Constable in the district of Garhwa- in the State of Jharkhand.

It was a condition mentioned in the public advertisement, which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, toÂ

the effect that a candidate can apply in one district. This condition was accepted by respondent no.1 (original petitioner), but, he had applied in more

than one districts and, hence, he has committed breach of the said condition. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the

learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 10 of

2012 and other batch matters vide judgment and order dated 27th June, 2014 which is reported in 2014 (3) JLJR 346.

Paragraphs 31, 34 and 41 of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 27th June, 2014 in L.P.A. No. 10 of 2012 and

other batch matters read as under:

“31. The existence of a law or statutory rule for prescribing such restriction is not a pre-condition. The condition mentioned in the advertisement

stipulating that a candidate can apply only for one district is a pre-requisite for appointment of Police Driver. It is for the executive to prescribe

conditions of service either by rules or by issuing administrative instructions. Having accepted the condition stipulated in the advertisement, the

respondents have submitted their applications making declaration that they have applied for only one district. The respondents, who have violated the

stipulated condition in the advertisement, cannot contend that the restriction is not supported by any rules.

As rightly submitted by the appellant-State, if the candidates are allowed to submit application in more than one District, they are to appear in the

test to be conducted in the different districts on different dates and if their names are listed in more than one district, they will have to forego

appointment in any one of the district/districts. This would defeat the very purpose of the decentralization of the recruitment. If the selected candidates

forego appointment in any of the district, it would cause administrative inconvenience apart from causing dearth of recruits in such cadre. If the

candidates are allowed to apply for more than one district by submitting more than one application, there would be multiplicity of applications and that

would cause administrative difficulties in the Department and that was the reason there was condition restricting the candidates from applying for

more than one district. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view the administrative difficulties caused by such applying for more than one district.

Learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondents were bound by the condition laid own in the advertisement as they have  willingly

accepted the same and if the candidates are bound by the same, no right of appointment can be claimed by them and they have no right of

appointment. Learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the restriction is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view the false declaration made by the candidate as also the administrative difficulties of the authorities

caused by the candidates by submitting application for more than one district. Therefore, the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge are liable to

be set aside. Â Â (emphasis supplied)

In view of the aforesaid decision, a candidate who has accepted the condition of the advertisement, now he cannot apply in more than one districts.

This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1.

Hence, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7753 of 2012, dated 1st August,

2013.

This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.

I.A. No. 4537 of 2014 and I.A. No. 4538 of 2014 are also disposed of, in view of final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal.