IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11990 of 2002 1. Manoj Kumar yadav, S/o Sri Chaturi Prasad Yadav, rsident of Village-Banshichak, P.O. Saidpur, P.S.- Pirpaiti, Dist.-Bhagalpur. 2. Ashok Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Shiv Dayal Singh, Village- Kunjwanna, P.S.-Pirpaiti, Dist.-Bhagalpur. ……………………………………………… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Bihar Military Police, Patna. 4. D.I.G. Uttari Mandal, Muzaffarpur at Muzaffarpur. 5. Commandant B.M.P.-7, Katihar. 6. Commandant B.M.P.-6, Begusarai. 7. Commandant B.M.P.-9 Jamalpur. ……………………………………………… Respondents ----------- 3 21.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the petitioners have made a prayer to the following effect:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction for quashing the order of the D.G. cum-I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna as contained in Annexure-3 of this application whereby he has ordered not to appoint further from the merit list prepared pursuant to advertisement No.1/98 as the procedures and qualification for recruitment of constable have been changed by bringing amendment in police Manual and for a further direction to appoint the petitioners on the post of constable in B.M.P. as they were successful in all the tasts 2 and have been even issued joining letters contained in annexure-2 series and for a further direction to fill all the vacancies of B.M.P.-9 Jamalpur still kept vacant or for any other direction or directions which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” Counsel for the petitioners in support of the aforementioned relief would submit that as a matter of fact these petitioners were also issued appointment letter but their joining was refused on account of a wireless message received by the controlling authority where the petitioners were supposed to join. Such wireless message being part of Annexure-3 reads as follows:- “REFERENCE THIS OFFICE SIGNAL NO. 4268/P-2 DATED 9.7.99 AND SUBSEQUENT LETTERS REGARDING FILLING UP OF VACANCIES THE RANK OF CONSTABLES IN PURSUANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT NO. 1/98(.) REENTLY PROCEDURES AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR RECRUITMENT OF CONSTABLES HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY BRINGING AMENDMENT IN POLICE MANUAL (.) HENCE NO FURTHER APPOINTMENT BE DONE FROM THE MERIT LIST PREPARED IN PURSUANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT NO. 1/98(.) NECESSARY LEGAL OPINION BEING SOUGHT IN THE LIGHT OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT’S JUDGMENTS FILL UP VACANCIES(.) HONOURABLE HIGH COURT WILL ALSO BE APRISED THIS MATTER AND AFTER GETTING NECESSARY DIRECTIONS FROM 3 HON’BLE COURT FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS WILL FOLLOW(.)” Counsel for the petitioners would submit that change of qualification or change in recruitment rules could never be made a basis for refusal of the appointment for already selected candidates. In this connection, he also relies on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N.T. Bevin Katti, etc., Vrs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1233. Counsel for the State on the other hand has produced before this Court an order dated 18.7.2002 passed in CWJC No. 8003 of 2002 wherein this Court pertaining to the same advertisement no. 1/98 has held that no further appointment would be made on the basis of advertisement no. 1/98. It is not in doubt that certain fixed numbers of posts were advertised in the advertisement no. 1/98 and even according to the counsel for the petitioners, all such posts had already been filled up in by appointing eligible candidates in two lots whereafter the process of appointment, in fact, was already completed in the year 1999 itself as would appear from the 4 reading of the aforesaid wireless message. Thereafter, the erstwhile State of Bihar was bifurcated in 2000 and therefore, the further appointment sought to be made for Dhanbad, Bokaro, Jamshedpur, Tatisilway & Hazaribagh being within the jurisdiction of the newly created State of Jharkhand could not have been filled up from the selected candidates of 1998 advertisement. In fact the petitioners have given no detail to show that how many appointments were already made on the basis of advertisement no. 1/98. There is also nothing on record to show that by the change of qualification for the post of Constable by enhancing it to Matriculation, how could the petitioners be affected if they were not selected and appointed in the first two lots against the total number of advertised posts. There is also nothing to show by way of pleadings that any person having lesser marks or points on the basis of selection of 1998 advertisement has been appointed on the post of Constable. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that issuing a mandamus for 5 appointment of the petitioners on the post of Constable on the basis of an advertisement of the year 1998 would be encroaching upon the rights and playing with the career and future of the other eligible candidates who had become eligible to be considered against such vacancies taking place after the year 1999. Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees every eligible candidate to be at least considered for appointment on a public post against a future vacancy. The advertisement issued in the year 1998, therefore, could not have been made basis for making appointment from a panel specially when the number of posts advertised therein had already been filled up by the year 1999 in two lots as is already claimed by the petitioners themselves. Infact this Court has already dismissed the similar writ applications including C.W.J.C. No. 8003 of 2002 and therefore, there would be no reason for this Court to now take a different view. Infact the same Annexure-3 was not interfered by this Court in the order dated 18.7.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 8003 of 2002 by this Court on the following ground:- “Admittedly, this is an internal 6 communication. The qualification of Constable has been enhanced to matriculation. A judgment to said effect is thereof the High Court on which legal opinion has been sought. Till that date further appointment also was stopped. The telegram message itself says that further direction would be sent after receipt of the legal opinion. Though the State Government states that after receipt of the legal opinion, decisions have been taken and perhaps some advertisement has also been made. However, these facts are neither under challenge nor controverted. The internal communication for ad interim arrangement cannot be looked into and challenged in a writ jurisdiction.” Thus when all the future vacancies were advertised on the changed enhanced qualification of Matriculation, the petitioners cannot claim a right to be appointed on the basis of earlier merit list whose life automatically came to an end on filling up of all the vacancies of 1998 advertisement. Infact the petitioners cannot claim that their being called for verification of certificate was an order appointment and such process could not have been interrupted due to change in selection procedure. The reliance 7 placed on Bavin Katti case (supra) is also wholly misplaced inasmuch as in the present case mode of selection has been changed for future vacancies and not before filling up the entire vacancies of 1998 advertisement. That being so, this application, is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)