IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7694 of 2006 GULAM SHARWAR SON OF MD. WAZIR AHMAD RESIDENT OF DULHIN BAZAR, P.S. DULHIN BAZAR, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING) CUM CHAIRMAN, CNETRAL RANGE BOARD NO. 2, PATNA. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION), BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RANGE, PATNA. 6. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL), BIHAR, PATNA. 7. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GNERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL), BIHAR, PATNA. 8. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HEADQUARTERS), BIHAR, PATNA. 9. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA. 10. SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA. 11. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA. ----------- 4 16/11/2010 In terms of advertisement dated 21.09.2004 issued by the Karamchari Chayan Ayog, petitioner became an applicant for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police. According to him, he had all the eligibility but he was not allowed to sit for examination and, therefore, had to rush to this Court by way of present writ application. On 13.09.2006 the Court allowed the petitioner - 2 - to sit for the written examination with a clear stipulation that permitting the petitioner to sit for examination shall not create any right legal or equitable in his favour. The position as of now is that petitioner has not been appointed and his result was not declared in fact. This is how the litigation has dragged on. Stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that since petitioner did not fulfill all the requirements in terms of the advertisement by the cut off date fixed in this regard, he could not be appointed on the post or his results declared. Since failure was on the part of the petitioner, the respondents cannot be blamed for not declaring the result of the petitioner even after allowing to sit for examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking cue from clause 12 of the said advertisement submits that since petitioner was a government employee, he had to forward his application through his employer giving its permission to enable the petitioner to sit for the said examination. Candidates were permitted to forward his application in advance which he did well in time but if the employer failed to forward his original - 3 - recommendation within cut off date as it was received thereafter, the petitioner ought not to be denied the benefit of consideration for appointment. The Court has gone through clause 12 as well as clause 13 of the advertisement. Clause 12 permits a government servant to make an application in advance to facilitate the processing of the application well in time. Advance copy would have given the authorities to scrutinize the application and shortlist the candidates for next round of exercise required in this regard but it does not mean that merely because petitioner had forwarded an advance copy, he was not obliged to fulfill rest of the requirements which included ensuring that the original recommendation of the employer in terms of clause 12 was submitted by the cut off date. Respondents have also brought on record subsequent clarification which have been issued in this regard which clearly indicates that furnishing of advance copy may not be by itself suffice so far as the eligibility to candidates of such kind is concerned. Petitioner should have ensured that the original recommendation in his favour was forwarded well in time so that his - 4 - eligibility did not remain a question mark. It may be a technicality based on which petitioner has lost out but then the terms of advertisement and requirements laid down therein have to be strictly construed. If it is not done, then the exercise of recruitment and appointments will never culminate or will attain finality since such defects or objections will keep pouring in on behalf of many of the candidates. Cut off dates are basically to close the date of late entry. Since the petitioner failed to ensure that in terms of clause 12 his original application was forwarded to the respondents by the cut off date, he did not become eligible to be considered for selection or appointment as the case may have been. In view of the categorical observation of the High Court in its order dated 13.09.2006, no right has accrued in favour of the petitioner even in terms of the interim order. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)