IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6303 of 2010 DHAN PRASAD S/O SRI KASHI NATH PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- CHHOTKI SARIMPUR, P.S.- BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR ……….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HEADQUARTER) GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 5. THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA, DISTT.- PATNA 6. THE SECRETARY BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA, DISTT.- PATNA 7. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 8. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SHAHABAD RANGE, DEHRI- ON-SONE -----------Respondents ------------- 03. 01.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the Staff Selection Commission. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Advertisement No. 704 of 2004. He cleared the physical selection as also the written. The appointment letter was issued to him on 4.7.2008 which has been withdrawn on 10.7.2009. The order of withdrawal states that he was recommended in the M.B.C. Category due to error at the stage of Data Entry. He had not furnished the necessary Creamy Layer certificate from the District 2 Magistrate within time granted to him. It is not in controversy between learned counsel for the parties that the commission on 22.4.2008 issued communication by Speed post to the petitioner giving him time till 28.4.2008 to furnish the necessary Creamy Layer Certificate from the District Magistrate concerned. It is the specific case of the petitioner with necessary documentary evidence in context of the Speed Post receipt that this communication was received by him on 29.4.2008, after the last date fixed for furnishing of the requisite certificate. The petitioner is acknowledged to have then submitted it barely a week later on 6.5.2008. Once the respondents decided to grant an opportunity to remove the defect, the question for consideration now shall be, if the petitioner had reasonable opportunity to remove the defect and acted with promptitude. The date of despatch of the communication by the respondents being excluded, he had barely five days to remove the defect. In the nature of the defect, where he was required to procure a fresh certificate from the concerned government authorities, this court does not consider five days to be a very reasonable period of time. It is a matter of common knowledge 3 that matters in the government move at their own pace under labyrinth procedures at different levels. That issue also looses its significance, when the communication has been received by him after the last date fixed i.e. on 29.4.2008. This Court is satisfied that, if the petitioner has then submitted the necessary certificate on 6.5.2008 he has certainly acted with promptness. This Court is therefore not persuaded to uphold the impugned order rejecting his candidature only on the ground that he did not submit the necessary certificate by 28.4.2008. This Court is not satisfied that the respondents have acted justifiably in withdrawing his recommendation on that ground. The order dated 10.7.2009 is therefore held to be not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The respondents are now required to consider the candidature of the petitioner in light of necessary certificate having been submitted as requested for. This Court has noticed the facts of the case only to the extent necessary for disposal of the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has no objection to undertaking training afresh and his joining being accepted afresh, while is now expected to be done 4 forthwith. The application is allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)