IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1034 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2643 of 2009 With Interlocutory Application No. 4711 of 2011 ====================================================== Tar Babu Yadav, s/o Shiv Shankar Yadav, resident of village-Kharauli, P.O.-Balua, P.S.-Guthni, District-Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director General of Bihar, Staff Selection Commission, Patna. 3. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Veterinary College, Patna. 4. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College, Patna. .... .... Respondents/ Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Upadhyay Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG 1 with Mr. S.S.Sundaram Mr. Vikash Kumar Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 08-08-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 2nd March 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 2643 of 2009 after an unexplained delay of two years and forty one days. Pursuant to the advertisement published on 21st September 2004, the appellant had applied for selection and appointment as Police Sub Inspector in the State Service in the category of Other Backward Class. The application was supported by a caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Patna High Court LPA No.1034 of 2011 (5) dt.08-08-2011 2 advertisement specifically required that in case of Other Backward Class candidate, caste certificate shall be issued by the District Collector or an officer authorized by the District Collector. The appellant’s candidature in the category of Other Backward Class was not accepted as the caste certificate was not issued by the District Magistrate or by the officer authorized by the District Magistrate as required. The challenge to the decision of the State Government in above CWJC No. 2643 of 2009 failed. The learned single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in the matter of Braj Kishore Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors [1998(3) PLJR 34], to hold that the application shall be in consonance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement. As the appellant’s application was not in conformation with the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement his candidature was rightly rejected. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has, in support of the limitation petition, filed a supplementary affidavit to show that the appellant could not contact the advocate engaged by him in the writ petition until 22nd July 2011. We may note here that neither in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor in the supplementary affidavit, the appellant has made out a satisfactory cause for the aforesaid inordinate delay of two years and forty one days. Mr. Sandeep Kumar has, in support of the Appeal, relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this court in the Patna High Court LPA No.1034 of 2011 (5) dt.08-08-2011 3 matter of Rakesh Kumar (LPA No. 416 of 2009 and other appeals) decided on 21st April 2011. He has submitted that in the said group of matters the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the claim of the applicants similarly situated as the present appellant in respect of the very advertisement published on 21st September 2004. Mr. Sandeep Kumar has submitted that the appellant, though belatedly, did file the caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate. It is apparent that the Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner after inordinate delay to avail of the benefit of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the respondents. He has submitted that the Full Bench judgment was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. Besides, there are other Division Bench judgments in the same subject matter taking the same view as the view expressed by the Full Bench. In the matter of Braj Kishore Prasad (supra) similar issue was referred to the Full Bench of this court. The Full Bench after an extensive judgment culled the following principles in Paragraph 26 of the judgment : “26. Having regard to all these considerations, I hold that: (a) Where the advertisement specifies the last date for filing of supporting or other documents, that date must be given effect to, and any document received after such date shall be rejected by the selecting authority. (b) In appropriate cases where the selecting authority is of the view that the time for furnishing of documents should Patna High Court LPA No.1034 of 2011 (5) dt.08-08-2011 4 be extended, it may grant such extension by issuing a public notice to this effect so that all candidates may get the benefit of such extension. In the absence of any such extension granted by the selecting authority, the date/dates mentioned in the advertisement should be treated to be the last date for filing of documents, and no document shall be accepted thereafter. (c) No application/document shall be entertained by the Commission if the same is filed after the last date specified in the advertisement, or the extended date notified by the Commission, even if the same is filed before the finalisation of the select list. (d) In appropriate cases where this Court is satisfied that a case of extreme hardship or injustice has resulted on account of factors beyond the control of the concerned candidate, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction may grant relief in deserving cases. But in doing so, the Court must be satisfied that the candidate concerned has acted diligently, and is not guilty of delay or laches in taking necessary steps for procuring the requisite certificates etc. However, no relief shall be granted where the requisite certificate is produced for the first time after the process of selection is complete and the selecting authority has made its recommendation”. For us there is no reason to take a different view. First, the Full Bench judgment is binding upon us. Second, it is settled law that the application made pursuant to the public advertisement must conform with the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement. The Division Bench in the Patna High Court LPA No.1034 of 2011 (5) dt.08-08-2011 5 aforesaid matter of Rakesh Kumar had no occasion to consider the above Full Bench judgment of this court. To that extent the Division Bench judgment in the matter of Rakesh Kumar (Supra) is per incurium. As recorded hereinabove, in the present case the application made by the appellant was not in conformation with the advertisement. The filing of requisite caste certificate later after the last date of making application can not validate the otherwise invalid application. The learned single Judge has, therefore, rightly rejected the writ petition. Mr. Sandeep Kumar has at last relied upon the aforesaid Clause (d) from the judgment of the Full Bench. He has submitted that the appellant shall get the relief as an extremely hard case. We are unable to agree with Mr. Sandeep Kumar. The appellant did not set up his case as an extremely hard case. There are no pleadings supported by relevant materials on record to bring the appellant’s case within the exception referred to in Clause (d). As recorded hereinabove, the present Appeal is evidently an after thought. No satisfactory cause for delay has been made out. Besides, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. The Appeal and the interlocutory application are dismissed in limine. Sujit/- A.F.R. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)