IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9448 of 2009 APIL KUMAR SINGH, S/o Sri Karoo Prasad Singh, resident of Village – Pain, P.O. Tilakpur, P.S. – Sultanganj, District – Bhagalpur. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR. 2. The Bihar State Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Additional Director General of Police (Head Quarter), Bihar, Patna. 5. The Additional Director General of Police (Training), Bihar, Patna. 6. The Additional Director General of Police –cum- Director, Bihar Police Academy, Patna. 7. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel), Bihar, Patna. 8. The Superintendent of Police, Constable Training School, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. 9. The Sergeant Major, Constable Training School, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. 10. The Assistant, Sub Inspector (First), Constable Training School, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. ….. Respondents. For the petitioner : - Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Onkar Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate. For the Commission : - Mr. P.K. Sahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.S. Sundram, Advocate Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate For the State : - Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.C. to G.P. 22. ----------- 02/ 10.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Bihar State Staff Selection Commission. 2. Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in response to Advertisement No. 704 of 2004, Annexure-2 to this application. Having undergone the selection process physical/ written test he was selected, appointed and sent for training. While in training he was visited with the instruction bearing memo no. 669 dated 11.4.2009, whereunder his appointment on the post of Sub- Inspector of Police has been cancelled in the light of the instruction - 2 - received from the Bihar Staff Selection Commission contained in letter dated 27.3.2009 on the ground that the candidature of the petitioner was in teeth of Clause 11 of the advertisement which, inter alia, restrained the applicant to apply before the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the Range in which the applicant had either his permanent or temporary address. It was made clear in the said clause that if the applicant had two addresses one permanent and the other temporary, then he must apply before only one of the Range D.I.G. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection pointed out that it is true that the petitioner applied before the D.I.G., Bhagalpur/ Munger but in both applications he indicated his permanent and temporary address at Bhagalpur as he had only one address which was both permanent and temporary and considering such fact his application filed before the D.I.G., Munger was rejected and he participated in the selection process taken before the D.I.G., Bhagalpur and the purpose in Clause 11 of the advertisement to confine the applicant to one Range selection board was achieved . In this connection, it is further submitted that close perusal of the Clause 11 would indicate that the dominant idea behind Clause 11 is to restrict the applicant to apply and participate before one Range Selection Board and in appreciation of such fact his other application filed before D.I.G., Munger was rightly rejected in terms of Clause 9, then at this belated stage the authorities ought not to have directed for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground of infracting Clause 11 of the Advertisement. In this connection, it is - 3 - further pointed out that the petitioner having participated in the selection process before the Range Board, Bhagalpur and having become successful was under training when he was served with impugned order which should be quashed on the ground that having allowed the petitioner to participate in the selection process and he having become successful his appointment cannot be cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission supported the impugned order with reference to the orders of the High Court dated 18.1.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14432 of 2007 in which applicants having one address had applied before the two Regional Board their application was cancelled in the light of Clause 11 and the subsequent notice dated 11.4.2008, wherein it was categorically stated that for any reason if any applicant applies before the two Regional Board his application shall be cancelled. While considering the cancellation of the candidature of the applicant who had made application before the two Regional Board , this Court observed that if the applicant is not in a position to understand simple Hindi of Clause 11 of the advertisement then he is not fit to hold the post of Sub- Inspector of Police. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am bound by the order 18.1.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14432 of 2007, wherein the candidature of those applicant who had applied before the two Regional Board were cancelled. When order dated 18.1.2008 was placed before this Court learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to one distinction between the case - 4 - which was considered under orders dated 18.1.2008 and the present one as according to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case the application of the petitioner filed at Munger was rejected earlier on the ground that applicant did not indicate in the application his Munger address and as the application filed at Munger was incomplete the same was rejected and petitioner was rightly permitted to participate in the selection process before Range Board, Bhagalpur. He having succeeded in the selection process his candidature cannot be cancelled at this belated stage. 6. With reference to the aforesaid distinction it was pointed out that the order dated 18.1.2008 shall have no application to the facts of the case. I have noted the aforesaid submission but as the order has considered Clause 11 of the advertisement and having considered the same has found the candidature of all those who had made application before the two Regional Board violative of Clause 11, I have no option but to fall in line with the order dated 18.1.2008 and while falling in line with the said order I hold that as the petitioner applied before the two Regional Board at Bhagalpur and Munger, although with the same address, his application at both the places were in teeth of Clause 11 of the advertisement so interpreted by this Court under orders dated 18.1.2008 (supra) which has also affirmed by the Division Bench under orders dated 1.4.2008 passed in L.P.A. No. 139 of 2008. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. DKS/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)