IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18744 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Mukesh Kumar S/O Sri Shiv Narayan Lal R/O Moh.-Nasirganj, P.O.- Digha, P.S.-Danapur, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Transport Commissioner Vishweshwaraiya Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, P.O.-Veterinary College, Patna 3. The Chairman Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, P.O.-Veterinary College, Patna 4. The Members Of Rescrutiny Committee Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, P.O.-Veterinary College, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chakradhari Shar Singh Aa ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 15-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application to be considered for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector under an advertisement of 2007. The origin of the controversy, the spate of litigations that have followed, the earlier observations of two Division Benches and the questions of law presently involved have all been noticed in detail in C.W.J.C. No.3663/11. The Court does not consider it necessary to reiterate the same and shall Patna High Court CWJC No.18744 of 2011 (3) dt.15-12-2011 2 therefore proceed to deal with the facts of the present case. The application of the petitioner was initially rejected on the ground that Form-1 in support of the experience certificates under Clause-B of the advertisement was not signed by the candidate. Secondly, the words “repair and overhauling” were not mentioned separately in the experience certificate. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7897/10. The writ petition was disposed in terms of certain other orders of this Court in context of the second defect noticed in his application. The first defect did not fall for consideration by the Court. The petitioner was again not called for interview leading to the institution of the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the necessary experience certificates and other information required under Form-1 was submitted by the petitioner. The defect in the experience certificates pointed out by the respondents was not accepted by the Court. The absence of his signature in Form-1 did not vitiate the authenticity and credence of the certificates submitted by him. The omission to sign Form I was a mere clerical fault for which he cannot be visited with such a harsh punishment of rejection of his candidature. If the petitioner had submitted any wrong information he could always be subjected to severe terms of a prosecution etc. Unlike the conditions incorporated in Clause- Patna High Court CWJC No.18744 of 2011 (3) dt.15-12-2011 3 B that in absence of the necessary experience certificates the application would be rejected, the advertisement did not mention that failure to sign Form-1 shall result in rejection of the candidature. It was lastly urged that even if Form-1 was not signed, this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7897/10 by remanding the matter to the authorities waived that defect and had directed consideration of his application. An additional ground was urged of gross irregularities and arbitrariness in the selection process in as much as persons who had originally been found ineligible had subsequently been called for interview. Four examples have been highlighted of one Shri Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Shri Nagesh Kumar, Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh and Shri Binod Kumar. The Commission has produced their original records also to which the Court shall advert later. Learned Additional Advocate General-1 for the Commission countering the allegation of gross arbitrariness in calling the candidates for interview submitted that the advertisement did not stipulate that Form-II under Clause –C of the advertisement was required to be submitted in original. If a candidate submitted Form-II in a Photostat version, there was no illegality in acceptance as the Commission before appointment could always cross verify the documents. An effort was made to persuade the Court that reading Clause-C of the advertisement in a composite form even a Xerox copy of Patna High Court CWJC No.18744 of 2011 (3) dt.15-12-2011 4 the confirmation issued by the District Transport Officer was acceptable. It was next contended that if the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that his application was in accordance with law and that the rejection was illegal, he cannot make any grievance with regard to any illegality committed vis-à-vis another candidate as no relief can be claimed based on parity to perpetuate illegality. The advertisement was in a prescribed format. It clearly stated that the candidate was required to sign Form I submitted in support of the experience certificates. Clause-B specifically stated that an application not accompanied by the relevant experience certificate shall be rejected. But, an application not signed by the candidate in Form-1 was clearly an incomplete application liable to be rejected under the last Clause of the advertisement. The Court finds it difficult to accept the submission that the error to sign the application was a clerical error. It made it an incomplete application. The fact that the experience certificates may have been annexed does not tantamount to the signature of the petitioner. If the application was incomplete, the Court finds no error in the rejection. The conditions of an advertisement are required to be scrupulously followed especially when it is in a prescribed form. It is not open to a candidate to urge that he may be Patna High Court CWJC No.18744 of 2011 (3) dt.15-12-2011 5 permitted to submit an application in a manner of his choice or the failure to perform certain obligations under the advertisement, including a signature was inconsequential. The signature in Form-1 was a confirmation by the candidate of his own experience certificates. The submission of the experience certificate, without confirmation by the candidate again made it an incomplete application. The respondents cannot dilute the conditions of an advertisement, more so after the selection process has commenced. The advertisement does not contain any relaxation clause. If the respondents wished to make any changes, it required a corrigendum. If the respondents cannot dilute any conditions of the advertisement, the Court has strong reservations if it possesses the power to alter, waive or improve any clauses of the advertisement. It is difficult to accept the submission of the petitioner that in C.W.J.C. No.7897/10 the Court waived the error on his part in not having signed Form-1 rendering an incomplete application as complete. The Court does not possess such powers under Article-226. The respondents therefore committed no error in rejecting his application. The conditions of the advertisement could not be relaxed or waived by the respondents in absence of any relaxation clause in the advertisement, much less could the Court direct any clause of the advertisement to be waived or Patna High Court CWJC No.18744 of 2011 (3) dt.15-12-2011 6 ignored. In 1993 Supp (4) SCC 377 (Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana) it was held : “12….The advertisement and the corrigendum are silent about relaxation of the said standards by the Board. In these circumstances, the Board could not, on its own, relax the standards of physical fitness as mentioned in the advertisement and the corrigendum….” It has been already observed in C.W.J.C.No.3663 of 2011 that if the applicant was vying for a government job in a severely competitive job market, he has himself to answer for his casualness of attitude perhaps also reflective of his unsuitability for the job. On the issue of arbitrariness the respondents first classified the aforesaid Shri Dhirendra Kumar Singh as a person who had not submitted the necessary Form-II. He was subsequently called for interview. His original application placed before the Court during hearing, reveals that it contained a Xerox copy of the certificate issued by the concerned District Transport Officer in Form-II and not the original certificate of the District Transport Officer. Clause-C of the advertisement clearly made a distinction between the requirement to submit a Xerox copy of the driving licence duly attested by the candidate. The words “xerox copy” is significantly absent when it mentions the requirement to submit the necessary certificate from the District Transport Officer in confirmation of the authenticity of the driving licence Patna High Court CWJC No.18744 of 2011 (3) dt.15-12-2011 7 submitted by the candidate in Xerox. An original document can be proof of authenticity of a Xerox document and not vice versa. It is a matter of common knowledge that Xerox copy of documents is capable of several maneuvers. A similar argument on behalf of the petitioner has already been rejected in C.W.J.C. 16649 of 2011 disposed as analogous with C.W.J.C. 3663 of 2011. With respect to Shri Nagesh Kumar, originally the respondents had raised an objection that Form-II was not annexed by him also. Learned Additional Advocate General-1 from the original application placed during hearing has clarified that it was available in original, but the words Form-II was not mentioned at the top of the certificate because of which it was one of the several erroneous applications rejected which were opened for re-scrutiny by the Court. In the case of Shri Ramesh Kumar the original defect was that he had not submitted his Matriculation mark sheet which was a basic essential educational qualification under the advertisement. Learned Additional Advocate General-1 from the original records placed that the Matriculation certificate as stipulated in the advertisement was available and that the identification of the application as defective for absence of the mark sheet was erroneous. In so far as Shri Binod Kumar is concerned, having considered the defect as pointed out originally with regard to Patna High Court CWJC No.18744 of 2011 (3) dt.15-12-2011 8 the nature of the licence as H.T.V. and H.G.V., and the subsequent re-consideration by the respondents the Court finds no error calling for any interference and/or observation. There has been substantial compliance of procedures and requirements by the respondents. But there have been wrongs committed also by accepting, proceeding and dealing with applications not in consonance with the advertisement by submission of Xerox copies of documents not specified as permissible under the advertisement. The earlier interview of the identified 22 candidates could not proceed by reason of the interim stay ordered by the Court. The respondents shall issue fresh dates for interview to these 22. But before issuance of such fresh notice they shall again cross verify the records of these 22 applicants and if any one of them have submitted a Xerox copy of the authenticity confirmation certificate from the District Transport Officer in Form II, it clearly does not classify as a valid application under the advertisement. The writ application is dismissed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)