IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5985 of 2009 SUBODH KUMAR, son of Sri Babujan Prasad Singh, resident of village Laxmipur (Raita), P.S. Bariarpur, District Munger … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna through its Secretary 3. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna 4. The Director General of Police, Patna 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Region, Munger 6. The Superintendent of Police, Munger … Respondents ----------- 2. 14.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “The petitioner by this application prays for issuance of a writ/writs, preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police holding that the petitioner is entitled for reservation of „Most Backward Category‟ as the petitioner has got higher marks than others have been selected for the post as such petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police after holding the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the said post.” 2 For the aforementioned prayer Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that when the advertisement itself had clearly mentioned that a certificate in respect of the candidate belonging to backward category would be issued by the Collector of the district or by an authority authorized by the Collector, and the petitioner had submitted the certificate issued by the Sub- divisional Officer, the Bihar Public Service Commissioner, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, had no reason to treat the petitioner as a candidate of general category. The said submission of the learned counsel could have merited consideration if there was something to show in the certificate issued by the S.D.O. itself that he had been authorized to issue such a certificate by the Collector of the district. The certificate issued by the S.D.O. is Annexure 3 to the writ application and is dated 4th March, 2009. Obviously this certificate was and could not have been produced by the petitioner for an advertisement which was issued on 22nd of 3 September, 2004 containing the following clause: ^^vkj{k.k fcgkj ljdkj }kjk ykxw vkj{k.k laca/kh lHkh fu;e izHkkoh gksaxsA ek= mUgha mEehnokjksa dks vkj{k.k dk ykHk feysxk tks fcgkj jkT; ds LFkk;h fuoklh gSA vU; jkT;ksa ,oa dsUnz 'kkflr izns'kksa ds mEenhokj dks pkgs oks fdlh Hkh tkfr dk gks] vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha feysxkA vkSj os lkekU; Js.kh ds ekus tk;saxsaA fcgkj jkT; ds LFkk;h fuoklh tks vuqlqfpr tkfr] tutkfr ds gS] mUgsa vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr djus ds fy, vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= layXu djuk gksxkA fcgkj jkT; ds LFkk;h fuoklh tks fiNM+s oxZ ,oa vR;Ur fiNM+s oxZ ds gSA mUgas ftykf/kdkjh vFkok muds }kjk vf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr vks0ch0lh0 izek.k i= layXu djuk gksxkA tks mEehnokj vkosnu i= esa vkj{k.k laca/kh lwpuk vafdr ugha dh gS mUgsa vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha feysxkA vkSj lkekU; tkfr ds ekus tk;saxsA** It is also clear from the aforementioned terms of the advertisement that a certificate had to be given in a fixed time limit and that too issued by a prescribed authority. Admittedly the petitioner had not done so because now the petitioner has filed before this Court yet another certificate issued by the Collector of the district dated 20th March, 2009, which is Annexure 8 to the writ application. Had such a certificate of the Collector been filed by the petitioner alongwith application in 2004 within the prescribed period in terms of the advertisement it 4 could have automatically qualified the petitioner for the reserved category but that was apparently never done by him. In that view of the matter, the reasons given in the impugned order dated 13.3.2009 by way of information to the petitioner sought under „Right to Information Act‟ as with regard to his non- consideration in reserved category and treating him to be of a general category to the following effect: ¼d½ vkj{kh voj fujh{kd ds izkIrkad dh fooj.kh fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx ds csolkbZV http/bssc.bih.nic.in ij izdkf'kr fd;k tk pqdk gSA ¼[k½ vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ds lQy mEehnokjksa dks vafre Cut off Marks 187.21 gSA ¼x½ vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ esa gksus dk nkok djrs gq, lQy mEehnokjksa esa uke ugha jgus ds dkj.k laca/k esa lwfpr djuk gS fd vkids ewy vkosnu i= ,oa OMR ds lkFk vkj{k.k ls lacaf/kr foKkiu esa fu/kkZfjr vkj{k.k ds 'kRrksa ds vuq:i l{ke inkf/kdkjh }kjk fdzeh ys;j esa ugha gksus dk izek.k i= ugha jgus ds dkj.k vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha fn;k x;k vkSj lkekU; dksfV ds vUrxZr j[kk x;kA** does not appear to be beyond the terms and conditions of the advertisement much less arbitrary and illegal. This Court also must notice the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner has filed 5 the application in the reserved category the Commission either could have considered his candidature in the reserved category or should not have considered his case at all. Such a desperate stand of the petitioner would again be in the teeth of the terms and conditions of the advertisement where it was made clear that in case the certificate of reservation was not filed, the candidate concerned would be treated to be one of general category. That being so, if the petitioner did not do the needful in terms of the advertisement this Court would not find any reason to allow the prayer made in the writ application. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha.J.) Surendra/