IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20024 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Brajesh Kumar Son Of Sripramod Kumar Resident Of Village + P.O.- Man, Police Station-Tekari, District-Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna Through Its Secretary, Having Office Under P.O. Veterinary College, Panta-800014. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, P.O.-Veterinary College, Patna-14. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16116 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Vikash Kumar S/O Sri Janardan Pd. Singh Residence Of Mohalla 62, Indira Nagar, Rajapur, West Boring Canal Road, Patna, P.O. + P.S.- Patliputra, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College Campus, Patna-14. 3. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College Campus, Patna-14. 4. The Examination Controller, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Veterinary College Campus Seikhpura, Patna-14. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19066 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Binay Kumar S/O Late Braj Raj Sinha, R/O 607,B-Block, Gagan Apartment, Exhibition Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Transport Commissioner, Vishweshvaraiya Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, P.O -Veterinary College, Patna.-14. 3. The Secretary , Bihar Staff Selection Commission Patna, P.O- Vetenary College, Patna.-14. 4. Members Of Re-Scrutiny Committee, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna. Under The Chairmanship Of The Secretary. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.20024 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram (In CWJC No.16116 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sri Krishna Ranjan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishiraj Sinha Gp19 (In CWJC No.19066 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2 Patna High Court CWJC No.20024 of 2011 (2) dt.19-12-2011 2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sahi Aag14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 19-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and for the Staff Selection Commission. The questions of law and the earlier orders of the Court on the issue have all been noticed in C.W.J.C. No.3663/11, 18744/11, and the same may be deemed to be incorporated as part of the present order. The Court shall therefore only advert to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original Form-II submitted by the petitioner may have been deficient as without his signature and wanting in the licence for certain categories of heavy vehicles. But, after the last date prescribed in the advertisement the petitioner has submitted a fresh Form-II covering all the four categories of licences visualized in the advertisement. Whatever defect was there in the original application therefore stood remedied/rectified. It was next submitted that the original advertisement provided for a written test. Subsequently, in view of the Bihar State Transport (Technical) Cadre Rules, 2003 notified in 2008 it was replaced by an interview only. The petitioner had lodged a protest as invited by the respondents that he should be considered for interview in accordance with his application which now stood remedied Patna High Court CWJC No.20024 of 2011 (2) dt.19-12-2011 3 of the defects. The respondents could not have changed the conditions of the advertisement by a corrigendum deleting the written test and substituting it by an interview only. The Rules had not specifically provided for possession of a driving licence by the candidates as a mandatory condition as it is mentioned in Clause-5(c) of the Rules under the heading “other conditions”. Allegations have also been made of arbitrariness and hostile discrimination vis-à-vis others called for interview details whereof have been mentioned in paragraph- 12 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the Commission submitted that the cut off date under the advertisement for possession of a valid driving licence and fulfillment of the conditions was 21.9.2007. The petitioner submitted an incomplete application. The question of rectification of any defects in such an application after the last date does not arise and such defective application stood rejected as incomplete under the conditions of the advertisement itself at the very inception. A Division Bench of this Court has already observed that the appointments have to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules. Rule-5 in no uncertain terms provides for the possession of a valid driving licence of the specified categories mentioned therein. It is held that Patna High Court CWJC No.20024 of 2011 (2) dt.19-12-2011 4 possession of such a licence was a mandatory condition for appointment under the Rules which under no circumstances can be ignored, waived or relaxed. If the petitioner submitted an unsigned Form-II and wanting in confirmation from the District Transport Officer for certain categories of licences, it was clearly an incomplete application liable to rejection at the very initial stage. The advertisement in no uncertain terms stated that it was mandatory to annex Form-II in the prescribed form. The petitioner therefore did not submit any application in accordance with law under the advertisement meriting consideration. The petitioner clearly falls in the category of a person who never made an application in accordance with law. The advertisement contains no relaxation clause. These aspects have also been fully considered in C.W.J.C. No.18744/11. If the petitioner was never an applicant in accordance with law, the contentions with regard to replacement of a process of interview only in place of the erstwhile written test etc. are all academic matters as it would have made no difference in the case of the petitioner. Insofar as the allegations of hostile discrimination and arbitrariness are concerned, the Court has already held that the applicant has to stand on his own strength. He has Patna High Court CWJC No.20024 of 2011 (2) dt.19-12-2011 5 first to demonstrate that his application was in consonance with the advertisement. If others had been irregularly/illegally called for interview, the petitioner cannot ask for perpetuation of the illegality of the four persons mentioned in paragraph-12, three of them have already come up for consideration by the Court in other writ applications. Insofar as Shri Ajay Kumar alone is concerned, the directions given in C.W.J.C. No.18744/11 with regard to the scrutiny to be carried out before issuing fresh interview calls to the 22 candidates shall govern his case also. In C.W.J.C. No.16116/11 the Form-II submitted by the petitioner was wanting in confirmation from the District Transport Officer with regard to heavy passenger vehicle licence. The application of the petitioner was therefore also clearly incomplete under the conditions of the advertisement and merited no consideration. In C.W.J.C. No.19066/11 likewise the licence authentication certificate submitted by the petitioner from the District Transport Officer was blank in the column relying to heavy passenger vehicle licence. For reasons already discussed, the Court finds no infirmity in rejection of his candidature also. The writ applications are dismissed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)