AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Kanchan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Md. Nasrul Hoda Khan, SC-1 for the respondent-State.
The case of the petitioners’ in the instant writ proceeding is that they were applicants pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/2006 for appointment
as Home Guards. It is the case of the petitioners’ that Selection Process remained idle for quite some time. In 2011, a fresh advertisement was
published bearing Advertisement No. 2/2011. The petitioners did not apply afresh. The petitioners, however, were issued admit cards under the new
process of selection along with applicants pursuant to the Advertisement No. 2/2011. The applicants of 2006 advertisement as well as 2011
advertisement were, therefore, now, required to be subjected to the selection process as per Advertisement No. 2/2011. The petitioners’,
thereafter, were issued admit cards to participate in the Physical Examination Test. It is the case of the petitioners that date was to be notified
separately. The Physical Examination Test, in the District of Supaul, was, thereafter, conducted on 24.09.2009. The petitioners did not come to know
about the said date fixed. It is the case of the petitioners’, as per Annexure-5, that they got knowledge about the date of Physical Examination
Test, but late. It is, under such circumstances, that they approached the District Magistrate, Supaul, on 11.10.2019, requesting that they be allowed to
appear in the Physical Examination Test. This Court made specific query to the petitioner’s counsel whether general notice was issued in respect
of the Physical Examination Test.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in Court itself, wherein, it is stated that Physical Examination Test was notified
but only for applicants pursuant to the Advertisement No. 2/2011. In view of such specific assertion made in the supplementary affidavit, it is more
than obvious that the petitioners’ allegation that there was no notice of the Physical Examination Test to be conducted on 24.09.2019 is untenable.
The petitioners’ were conscious of the fact that they were, now, being treated as applicants pursuant to Advertisement no. 2/2011 and were to be
subjected to the same selection process. The petitioners’ allegation, that there was no notice to the petitioners appears to be incorrect. Moreso,
since one of the petitioners in his application made to the District Magistrate, Supaul, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, has said that he
acquired knowledge of the date fixed for Physical Examination Test, but late. There is no averment in the writ petition or supplementry affidavit that
no notice was published for physical examination Test. The fact that petitioners came to know about date fixed for physical examination Test
belatedly, per se cannot be the basis for now issuing a direction for allowing the petitioners to participate in the Selection Process.