IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2777 of 2011 1. Ranjeet Kumar Singh @ Ranjeet Kumar Son Of Shri Surendra Prasad Singh Resident Of Village And Post Office - Paspura Police Station Muffasil District Begusarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary, Ventnary College, Patna -14 3. Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Vetenary College, Patna ---------------------------------- 6. 16.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the „Commission‟). The questions arising for consideration in the present application, of facts and law are similar to those considered in C.W.J.C. No. 3663 of 2011. The discussion on law as contained in that order be deemed to be incorporated in the present order also. The Court shall therefore only notice the facts of the present case to arrive at the conclusion. The Form II submitted by the petitioner was not in the form prescribed under the Advertisement, a fact which counsel for the petitioner is unable to deny. Likewise the information required in Form II, as furnished was also incomplete as it did not incorporate authenticity confirmation certificate from the District Transport Officer, Giridih with 2 regard to Heave Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Vehicle Licences. The authenticity confirmation certificate was only submitted from the District Transport Officer, Begusarai for Motor cycle and Light Motor Cycle. Answering the same, it was submitted that furnishing of information in the prescribed Form II was not mandatory. Unlike the condition incorporated in Clause-B that in absence of any necessary experience certificate in Form-I the application shall be rejected, there was no such stipulation with regard to Form-II. It was lastly submitted that the Commission has acted arbitrarily and subjected the petitioner to hostile discrimination inasmuch as one Rajeshwar Lal who likewise had not submitted his driving licence with proper verification and Form-II submitted by him was without name and driving licence number has been called for interview. Likewise, one Sanjeev Kumar had not submitted Form-II in the prescribed form has still been called for interview. Learned counsel for the Commission fairly stated that if any person has been wrongly called for interview and his application may not be fulfilling the 3 conditions of the advertisement, the Commission before making any recommendations naturally shall have to re-examine his original papers to see if the application was strictly in accordance with the Advertisement failing which any erroneous call for interview may not vest any right in such a candidate. The Court shall first take up the allegation of arbitrariness and hostile discrimination. The claims of the petitioner has to stand or fall on its own strength. If he is a candidate who meets the conditions of the advertisement then only the question of arbitrariness or discrimination arises. If he himself does not meet the conditions, he cannot invoke Article 14 to contend that if the Commission has committed errors with regard to others there must be parity in illegality by perpetuation of the same. Article 14 does not operate in negativity. The nature of duty of the Commission with regard to such persons who may have wrongly been called for an interview is an entirely different matter. It has already been held in C.W.J.C. No. 3663 of 2011 that the provision of the prescribed form in the advertisement under which Form-II was to be submitted was not an empty formality and those who did not submit it in the prescribed form 4 can legitimately be denied consideration. The Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 905 of 2010 has already held as follows:- “However, the requirement of the Rules of the Advertisement that the candidate must have the required driving licence duly certified in Paripatra-II cannot be ignored” The Advertisement unambiguously stated that a candidate must annex Form-II in the prescribed form. The last Clause of the Advertisement stated that incomplete applications shall be rejected. Every condition of an Advertisement is to be complied with. A candidate cannot claim that he would submit his application in a manner of his choice notwithstanding what the advertisement may require. Merely because the specific words for rejection have not been used in Clause-C read with Form-II in contradistinction with Form-B does not make it not mandatory. If it were to be so, the very purpose of accepting a self Xerox copy of a driving licence subject to an authenticity confirmation from the District Transport Officer concerned shall stand defeated. The Form-II of the petitioner was not in the prescribed form. On the own showing of the petitioner it was also incomplete to the extent that it 5 did not bear authenticity confirmation from the District Transport Officer, Giridih for Heavy Goods Vehicle and Heavy Passenger Vehicle. It cannot be classified as a defective Form-II. There was in fact no Form-II submitted under the advertisement in the eyes of law. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3663 of 2011 has more than adequately noticed how the respondents have been deficient in carrying out a selection process for 59 posts with 183 applicants only. The anguish of two Division Benches how the appointments were being stalled has also been taken note of. The posts were public posts and in the nature of the duties to be performed it is in public interest that the eligible be appointed at an early date. But that cannot be construed as carte blanche to allow the respondents to proceed with interview of the ineligible and then take a defence that before issuance of the appointment letter to them they shall re-scrutinize their original records to re-confirm if they fulfill the conditions. The respondents appear to be acting more in a manner to generate litigation rather than curb litigation. In C.W.J.C. No. 18744 of 2011 also the petitioner had pointed out at least one person whose 6 case was required to be reconsidered as not fulfilling the conditions of the Advertisement. Considering the same and what has transpired today with regard to two more applicants, the Court considers it proper to direct the Commission to annul the previous interview letter issued and issue fresh interview letters to the 22 candidates concerned. Before issuing the fresh interview letter the Commission shall scrutinize their original application in light of the discussion contained in C.W.J.C. No. 3663 of 2011 and 18744 of 2011 and then issue fresh interview call to the eligible amongst these 22 candidates who meet the requirements as per the Court orders. The Commission remains bound by the apprehension expressed by the Division Bench in M.J.C. No. 2521 of 2011 as also noticed in C.W.J.C. No. 3663 of 2011 and must display its bonafides by concluding the entire process of selection within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)