IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.416 of 2009 1.RAKESH KUMAR son of Sri Ram Ratan Prasad resident of village Awadheshpur P.S. Dhanarua Dist. Patna presently residing at G.D.S. Hostal, Krishnaghat Patna University Patna. 2.Ranjana Sinha, D/O Shri Chandeshwar Prasad Verma, resident of quarter No.16, Road No.20, Gardanibagh, District- Patna. (Intervener- petitioner Vide I.A No.1827 of 2011) …………Petitioners- Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary Cum Commissioner Personnal and Administrative Department Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General Police Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police Patna Range Patna. 5. The Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police Magadh Range Gaya. 6. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Patna through its Secretary. 7. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna. 8. The Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission Patna. ………………..Respondents/ Respondents. 9. Mukesh Kumar, S/O Baboo Ram resident of village Paluhour, P.S. Tikari District Gaya presently residing at Mohalla- Ram Nagar near- Gurguriya, Bagodar, Dist-Giridih. …………………Petitioner/Respondent. with LPA No.521 of 2009 SHASHI PRABHA MANI, W/o Sri Sasnjeev Kumar and D/o Sri Baleshwar Prasad Singh presently residing at Village Abdulahchak, P.S. Rahui, District- Nalanda. ………………..Petitioner/ Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Staff Selection, Commission, Patna. 3. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna through its Chairman. …………………Respondents/ Respondents. with LPA No.1014 of 2009 1.LUSY KUMARI daughter of Lakhan Lal Mandal, resident of Hajipur, Ward No.4, P.S. Khagaria, District- Khagaria. 2. Kumari Archana Singh, W/O Sri Amlendu Kumar Ranjan, resident of Flat No. 1/B, Block-C, Sheesh Mahal Apartment, Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Bhadurpur, District- Patna. (Intervener-petitioner Vide I.A. No.6743 of 2009). …………..Petitioners/ Appellants. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Staff Selection, Commission, Patna. 3. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna through its Chairman. …………………Respondents/ Respondents. with LPA No.933 of 2008 ARCHANA KUMARI SINHA, D/O Sheo Kumar Prasad, R/o Village/ Mohalla- Lodipur, P.S. & District- Nalanda at Biharsharif. …………………..Petitioner/ Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Home Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary Patana-14. 6. The Chairman Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna-14. 7. Alka Soni W/o Sanjay Kumar Roll No. B-00920 through the Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna-14. ………………………. Respondents. with LPA No.934 of 2008 RUPA KUMARI, D/O Sri Rama Nand Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Bettiah House Road, Post Guljarbagh, P.S. Sultanganj, Dist. Patna. ……………………..Petitioner/ Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Home Commissioner Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Personal & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Patna- 14. 6. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna- 14. 7. Arvind Kumar Singh S/o Jagdish Prasad Singh Roll No. P- 02132 through the Secretary Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna- 14. ……………………..Respondents/Respondents. with LPA No.956 of 2008 NADIR FAISAL, S/o Fazal Ahmad, R/o Alamganj Pathantoli, P.S. Alamganj, Dist. Patna. ……………….Petitioner/ Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Home Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, Patna- 14. 6. The Chairman Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna- 14. ………………………Respondents. with LPA No.1497 of 2009 3 1. ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHEO SHANKER PRASAD GUPTA R/O FARBISGANJ, P.S. FARBISGANJ, DISTT. ARARIA … …………………Petitioner/Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE HOME COMMISSIONER BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY PATNA-14 6. THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSIONER, PATNA-14 ………………..Respondents. with LPA No.1576 of 2009 1. KAMESHWAR JEE PRASAD S/O LATE HEERA LAL R/O VILL NAYA BHOJPUR (EAST TOLA) P.S.DUMRAOW, DISTT-BUXAR …………….Petitioner/ Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE HOME COMMISSIONER BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY PATNA-14 6. THE CHAIRMAN , BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSIONER PATNA-14 ………………..Respondents. with LPA No.816 of 2009 KANCHAN KUMARI, D/O Shri Ram Sewask Prasad, R/O Mohalla Gurhatta, P.S. Khajekalan, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna. 4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission through Secretary, Patna. 5. Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna. …………………Respondents/ Respondents. with LPA No.83 of 2010 4 1. RINKU RANJAN KUMAR S/O SRI RAM PRAVESH SHARMA R/O VILL- HARIPUR, P.S. EKANGARSARAI/ PARWALPUR, DISTT. NALANDA ………………..Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE HOME COMMISSIONER BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 4. BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA 6. THE CHAIRMAN BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA 7. THE SECRETARY BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA …………….. Respondents. with LPA No.125 of 2009 SANJEEV KUMAR, son of Shri Parmanand Thakur, Resident of village Gagendra Bigha, P.O. & P.S Hilsa, District- Nalanda (Bihar). …………..Appellant/ Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Patna-14. 3. The Examination Controller, State Staff Selection Commission, Patna- 14. 4. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 5. The B.D.O. Hilsa, District Nalanda at Biharsharif. …………….Respondents/Respondents. with LPA No.1238 of 2010 1. SHYAM BABU S/O LATE TULSI PRASAD R/O VILL MATEHUATOLI, P.S.ARA NAGAR, DISTT-BHOJPUR 2. SHUBHENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI RAM R/O VILL LAXMIPUR, P.S.AYER, DISTT-BHOJPUR …………….Appellants/ Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION , PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BIHAR, PATNA ……………….. Respondents. ----------- For the Appellants:- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, & Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr. 5 Advocates, and Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, Mr. Ajay, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Mr. Shashi Kumar, Mr. Shruti Sinha & Mr. Onkar Kumar, Advocates. For the State:- Mr. Chakardhari Sharan Singh (AAG-6), Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Prashant Pratap, G.P.6 & Mr. General Rajesh, A.C. to G.P.6. For the Staff Selection Commission:- Mr. S.S. Sundram, A.A.G.6. ………………… 11 21.04.2011 The above mentioned batch of cases arise out a common order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.10121 of 2008 and other analogous cases. The main grievances of the appellants in these appeals are that they have applied for the post of Sub. Inspector of Police in pursuance to the advertisement No.704 dated 21.9.2004. The advertisement indicates that there are 1510 vacancies. Claim of the appellants is that they belong to „Most backward classes category‟ and have secured more marks than the candidates who were selected for appointment and also qualified in the physical test but they could not get appointment letters on the ground that they have not submitted their caste certificates issued by the concerned District Magistrate. The case of the appellants/ petitioners herein before the learned Single Judge was that they have submitted their O.B.C. certificate issued by the concerned Sub. Divisional Officer as required in the advertisement and on the basis of which they have been issued admit cards for appearing in the written examination and had succeeded in the said examination and obtained higher marks than the candidates who have been selected for appointment which fact has also been accepted by the respondents in their 6 counter affidavits, but the appellants were not selected for appointment on the ground that they have not submitted the caste certificates as required in the advertisement. Therefore, such action in question has been challenged before the learned Single Judge by the writ petitioners, appellants herein. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 and respondent nos. 6 to 8. It has been contended before the learned Single Judge as also before this Court that a fresh press note dated 13.102007 was published by the Commission with details of the syllabus for the written examination papers and procedures requiring the successful applicants to purchase the O.M.R. forms and apply afresh in the prescribed format. Item no.6 of the said press note provided that those claiming benefit of Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes must submit their caste certificates issued from the Sub. Divisional Officer and those claiming the benefit of „other backward castes‟ and „extremely backward castes‟ were required to submit their caste certificates including that of not belonging to the creamy layer from the District Magistrate or the officer authorized by him. Schedule I to the said advertisement dated 13.10.2007 contained the name of such persons, who were under or overage and not eligible to appear at the written examination, or for reasons of the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No.6088 of 2006 debarring those who had applied from two places. Schedule II contained the list of roll numbers of persons from all categories, general and reserved, who had otherwise qualified at the physical screening test, but 7 their applications were wanting for supporting papers. It is contended that for want of such papers the candidate could have been disqualified at the screening stage though otherwise found physically fit. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that even though they have submitted the required certificates signed by the concerned Sub. Divisional Officer and they have secured higher marks than the candidates who have been selected for appointment, the appellants were not selected for appointment on the posts in question. It has further been contended that the Commission has committed irregularities in not affording opportunities to the appellants to remove the defect in their application with regard to the caste certificates. It has been submitted that the caste certificate issued by the Sub. Divisional Officer cannot be rejected merely because it is not countersigned by the concerned District Magistrate. It has further been argued that the Division Bench of this Court has already upheld the validity of such certificate in the case of „The Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors’ reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 155. It has further been contended that it is an admitted fact that the Commission has issued a general notice on 13.10.2007 to the effect that the successful candidates would submit a fresh certificate in case their applications were found defective as not being issued from the competent authority as such defective applications were required to be rejected under clause 9 of the advertisement. It is further contended that the 8 appellants cannot be made defaulter as they have already submitted the OBC certificates and they have already been issued with admit cards and they were allowed to appear in the written examination. It has been further contended that the decision of the Commission cannot be sustained in not selecting the appellants for appointment for the reasons that the Commission had not rejected the case of the appellants on the ground of any fraud or misrepresentation and the candidates who have not submitted their certificate at all cannot be termed as „separate class‟ as has been observed by the learned Single Judge for the reason that those are the candidates whose applications have to be rejected. It is further contended that such classification cannot have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the applicants have to submit the OBC certificates issued from the concerned Sub. Divisional Officer as worded in the advertisement in question, but in the fresh press note the appellants were required to submit such certificate which should be duly counter signed by the concerned District Magistrate during process of appointment as per instruction issued by the Commission, but no opportunity was given to the appellants to remove the defect as was given to the other candidates who have not submitted their certificates at all. In view of the fact that the Commission has rejected their cases only on the ground that they have not submitted the OBC certificate from the concerned District Magistrate, and such action of the Commission cannot be based on „classification‟ of the 9 candidates who have failed to submit the caste certificates, and also for the reason that the candidates who have not filed the certificates as indicated in Scheduled-II cannot be termed to be „better placed.‟ It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission (Supra) wherein this Court has observed that the certificates issued by the SDO was a part of his official duty discharged by the S.D.O and there is a presumption about such official act that it is in compliance of all the required authority and legal requirement. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission has vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants stating that as the appellants have not submitted their caste certificates duly signed by the District Magistrate hence their cases could not be considered. It has further been contended that Schedule II to the press note dated 13.10.2007 which contained roll numbers have been treated as separate class as observed by the learned Single Judge hence action of the Commission cannot be said to be faulted. It is further contended that the persons whose application was found defective were given full opportunity in the second advertisement dated 13.10.2007 to submit their caste certificates and non-creamy layer certificates from the District Magistrate, but again the appellants 10 had chosen to submit the said certificate signed by the Sub. Divisional Officer who was not competent as per condition mentioned in the advertisement. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the appointment letters have already been issued to the candidates who had come on merits as per reservation quota, but the appellants could not be considered as persons in the reserve category in absence of proper caste certificates. The appellants were given full opportunity in second advertisement dated 13.10.2007 to submit their caste certificates and non creamy layer certificates. Facts are not in dispute to the extent that an advertisement was issued by the Commission for appointment on the post of Sub. Inspector of Police for 1510 posts only, but 2110 candidates were selected and appointed on the said post as according to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State the posts are increased and decreased from time to time, which was subject matter of L.P.A. No.1497 of 2009l, where the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the action of the State Government in recruiting the excess persons apart from number of vacancies which may increase or decrease. The facts remain that all the appellants have appeared in the written test conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and obtained higher marks than the candidates who have been selected for appointment, as stated in the affidavits and also in a Tabular form which was produced before this Court signed by all the counsels, which is treated to be 11 part of the record. For convenience the said tabular form is extracted hereinbelow:- Sl. No Case No. Name & Roll No. Categor y Marks obtained Cut off marks Name & No of last appointed candidate 1 L.P.A. 416/20 09 Rakesh Kumar (P22215) MBC 222.69 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary- G06929 2 I.A No. 1827/2 011 in L.P.A. No.416 /09 Ranjana Sinha (P03976) BC (W) 225.67 174.63 Alka Soni- B00920 3 521/20 09 Shashi Prabha Mani (P13457) BC (W) 199.05 174.63 Alka Soni- B00920 4 1014/0 9 Luci Kumari (X7852) MBC 217.81 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary- G06929 5 I.A. No. 6743/0 9 in L.P.A. 1014/0 9 Kumari Archana Singh BC (W) 202.43 174.63 Alka Soni – B00920 6 933/20 Archana BC 197.66 174.63 Alka Soni – 12 08 Kumari Sinha (P20532) (W) B00920 7 934/20 08 Rupa Kumari (P11897) MBC 209.40 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary- G06929 8 956/20 08 Nadir Faishal (P43910) MBC 220.87 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary- G06929 9 1497/0 9 Rohit Kr. Gupta (Z04322) BC 228.52 223.26 Bijendra Kr. Brajesh (P46620) 10 816/20 09 Kanchan Kumari (P41499) BC (W) 186.13 174.63 Alka Soni- B00920 11 83/10 Rinku Ranjan Kumar (P32856) MBC 189.89 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary- 187.21 G06929 12 125/09 Sanjeev Kumar (P04122) MBC 199.60 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary- 187.21 (G06929) 13 *MBC Most Backward Caste *BC Backward Caste *BC (W) Backward Caste (Women) *SC Scheduled Caste It is the case of the appellants that they have submitted their OBC certificates from the concerned S.D.O as per the condition inserted in the advertisement itself and they were allowed to appear in the written examination conducted by the Commission and they have become successful in the said examination and obtained higher marks than those who were selected for the post of Sub. Inspector of Police by the 13 1238/1 0 Shyam Babu (Y09322) and Shubhendr a Kumar (Y18274) MBC SC 199.49 222.35 187.21 186.76 Birendra Kr. Choudhary- 187.21 (G06929) Yogendra Ravidas- 186.76 (G10822) 14 1576/0 9 Kameshwa r Jee Prasad (Y20330) MBC 212.16 187.21 Birendra Kr. Choudhary- 187.21 G06929) 14 Commission, but surprisingly they could not find their names in the merit list of the selected candidates and further they learnt that their names were not recommended only on the ground that they have not submitted their caste certificates issued by the Sub. Divisional Officer and also counter signed by the concerned District Magistrate. Now the point arises for determination is that as to whether such certificates submitted by the appellants are valid or not. We had the occasion to go through the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of „Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. State of Bihar’ reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 155, wherein the law laid in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 are as follows:- “Before us, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since certificate produced by the petitioner- respondent no.2 did not mention that the Sub-Divisional Officer was authorized by the Collector to issue such certificate could not have been taken into consideration. This contention is to be noticed only to be rejected. Firstly, this issue was never joined by the appellants that the certificated produced by the petitioner-respondent no.2 was not issued by any authorized officer and suffered from defect of the lack or authorization of Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the District Magistrate. Secondly, even the advertisement does not show nor it has been pointed out that under any rule or as a part of the policy of the State the caste certificate to be issued at the Sub- Divisional Officer Headquarters must be counter signed by the Collector or the Sub-divisional Officer who is otherwise a Chief Executive of Sub- divisional Headquarter must get independent authority for the purpose of issuing certificate of caste along with the creamy layer otherwise vested with power to issue such certificate. Moreover, the certificate has been issued on the official docket of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa and it was a part of the official duty discharged by the Sub-Divisional 15 Officer of any Sub-Divisional Headquarters. There is a presumption about regulatory of the official act that it is in compliance of all required authority and legal requirement. It is for those who question such authority to prove that such certificate is not by a duly authorized person. No such question was raised, nor even now it is stated that such specific authorization was needed and in fact no such authorization was issued. All necessary material in this regard is with State. In view thereof no other conclusion is possible that the appellants, in the first instance, committed a mistake in requiring the petitioner- respondent no.2 to produce the certificate of District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate only for the purpose of considering her candidature at the time of interview when it was not part of the condition advertised and having required for such additional requirement during interview in spite of a proper certificate having been produced, the petitioner-respondent no.2 also produced the certificate within the time allowed to her fulfilling such condition also. The contention of Sri Jha that in the circumstances no notice can be taken of any such time granted for the purpose or has any power vested in the Board is also devoid of any force because of very first stage of asking for a certificate from District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate was without authority. If such a demand is considered legitimate then production of a required certificate within time allowed by it for the purpose cannot be ignored. This observation we make only to buttress the conclusion that if as a result of an unauthorized demand the respondent no.2 was required to fulfill the deficiency they were not required, the consideration could not have been denied on that ground even after same was fulfilled.” In view of the fact that there is no material produced by counsel for the respondents to show that the certificates produced by the appellants are not in accordance with the advertisement, we are of the opinion that the said certificates are in force till today. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the appellants have to submit their 16 caste certificates issued only by the concerned District Magistrate, cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of ratio of the decisions as laid down in the case of „Bihar Public Service Commission’ (Supra). The learned Single has observed that the candidates have to submit their caste certificates including the certificate of non creamy layer from the concerned District Magistrate or an officer authorized by him. In the aforesaid judgment cited supra it was provided that the caste certificate of OBC or E.BC issued by the District Magistrate or counter signed by him or issued by the Additional Collector authorized by the District Magistrate or Sub. Divisional Officer including that of not belonging to the creamy layer was to be produced at the time of interview but the appellants have not followed such instruction. We are of the opinion that findings of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the candidates at two stages form as a separate class cannot be sustained in the eye of law for the reason that such classification cannot have a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. As per terms of the advertisement inviting applications for the candidates for the post of A.S.I. the relevant conditions imposed for seeking benefit of reservation as published in the advertisement is quoted hereinbelow:- “vkj{k.k& fcgkj ljdkj }kjk ykxw vkj{k.k laca/kh lHkh fu;e izHkkoh gksaxs A ek= mUgha mEehnokjks dks vkj{k.k dk ykHk feysxk tks fcgkj jkT; ds LFkk;h fuoklh gSa A vU; jkT;ksa ,oa dsUnz ”kflr izns”ksa ds mEehnokj dks pkgsa os fdlh Hkh tkfr ds gksa] vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha feysxk vkSj os lkekU; Js.kh ds 17 ekus tk;saxs A fcgkj jkT; ds LFkk;h fuoklh tks vuqlwfpr tkfr tutkfr ds gSa] mUgsa vkj{k.k dk ykHk izkIr djus ds fy, vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= layXu djuk gksxk A fcgkj jkT; ds LFkk;h fuoklh tks fiNM+s oxZ ,oa vR;ar fiNM+s oxZ ds gSa] mUgsa ftykf/kdkjh vFkok muds }kjk izkf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr vks0 ch0 lh0 izek.k i= layXu djuk gksxk A tks mEehnokj vkosnu i= esa vkj{k.k laca/kh lwpuk vafdr ugha djsaxs mUgsa vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha feysxk vkSj lkekU;