1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3038/2003. (BALWANT SINGH CHAUDHARY VS. STATE & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 19.01.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Sunil Beniwal for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. GA, for the respondent/s. The Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur under an advertisement dated 18.01.2003 invited applications from the eligible and desirous candidates to be recruited as Constable in various districts. The petitioner in pursuant thereto submitted an application in the proforma prescribed by the respondents, according to that, an applicant was required to mention his local address and permanent address in column 3, whereas an address for correspondence was required to be given in column 5. A self address envelope was also required to be given along with application form. The petitioner in the application form concerned, described his local address and permanent address in column 3 and also averred address for correspondence in column 5. A self address envelope was also annexed with the application form. A call letter to appear in written examination was sent by the respondents to the petitioner under the self address envelope at the address for correspondence. The petitioner qualified the 2 written test, but requisite information was not sent to him at the address given by him for making necessary correspondence. The respondents sent intimation to the petitioner to appear in subsequent steps of the selection proceedings at his permanent address. The contention of the petitioner is that a specific address for correspondence was given by him in column 5 of the application form, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to send intimation at permanent address. It is urged that due to remittance of the intimation at permanent address instead of the address for correspondence, the petitioner failed to appear in subsequent steps of the selection proceedings after qualifying the written test and that resulted into deprivation of a right to be considered for appointment. It is stated by counsel for the respondents that in the application form three addresses were mentioned and it was open for the respondents to send information at any one of the addresses given. The intimation to face selection proceedings subsequent to written test was sent to all the candidates at their permanent address and, therefore, no error is committed while sending intimation to the petitioner at his permanent address in place of the address for correspondence given in the application 3 form. It is urged that the petitioner could have received information from his permanent address. The respondents along with their reply to the rejoinder have placed on record a photo stat copy of the application form submitted by the petitioner in prescribed proforma, from perusal thereof it is apparent that the address for correspondence given by the petitioner is different than the permanent address given in column 3. Once an address for correspondence was given by the petitioner in the application form, there was no need for the respondents to send intimation for appearing in subsequent steps of the selection proceedings at his permanent address, specially in the circumstances that initially the call letter to appear for written test was sent at the address for regular correspondence. The argument for having liberty to send intimation at any one address from the three given addresses is also of no consequence. The respondents specifically sought an address for correspondence, as such they should have sent the intimation to the petitioner to participate in selection proceedings at that address only. The permanent and local addresses must have been taken by the respondents for verification of character and credentials of the aspirants for appointment, that is an integral 4 requirement of making selections to various parts in Rajasthan Police. There may be no malice or wrong intention on part of the respondents in sending intimation at permanent address, but the resultant is that the petitioner has lost an opportunity to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable. An appointment is a form of property and the chance to be considered for appointment is a valuable right that cannot be snatched without authority of law. Due to negligence or carelessness of the officers of the government, big loss is caused to the petitioner. In the instant matter, the negligence of the Department of Police while sending intimation to the petitioner at his permanent address instead of his address for correspondence is writ large, therefore, the loss caused to the petitioner has to be compensated adequately. The selection proceedings in question have already been concluded and the appointments consequent thereto have already been given, therefore, certainly no direction can now be given to consider candidature of the petitioner afresh for appointment. The loss caused to the petitioner in such circumstances may be compensated in the terms of money. The petitioner is a young boy of 22 years and he is having of chances to be employed somewhere else, therefore, the compensation required to be given to him is just 5 token and also with view to alarm the officers of respondent department that they are required to act cautiously and with all vigilance. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondent State to make payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner as a compensation within a period of 60 days from today. It may be open for the State to recover the money paid to the petitioner as compensation from the erring officers. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/