IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18161 of 2009 Nilesh Kumar & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 4. 25.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners were applicants in the general category for the post of Constable under advertisement nos. 1 of 2004, 2 of 2004 and 3 of 2004 conducted together. Aggrieved by denial of appointment they came to this Court in CWJC No. 9920 of 2009. The Court directed disposal of their representation by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur Range, by passing of appropriate orders indicating reasons. In pursuance of the same the impugned order dated 25.10.2009 has been passed. The impugned order states that the petitioner no. 1 had secured 13 marks. He was not awarded any marks for sports certificate and that the last person appointed in his category had 15 marks. The petitioner from the representation filed in pursuance of the earlier order of the Court is unable to demonstrate that he had invited the attention of the respondents to specified sports certificates. The representation simply states that he had filed sports certificate. In the writ petition it has been sought to be explained as to what kind of certificates he had filed. The respondents in the impugned order simply states that no marks was given for sports certificate. If the petitioner stated in his representation that he had submitted sports certificate without specifying nature of the certificate the impugned order should have stated that either he had not filed certificates or that if he had filed certificates, why they were not acceptable. The Court had already 2 directed issuance of appropriate reasoned order. Perhaps a little caution on the part of the Deputy Inspector General of Police may have prevented fresh litigation. A citizen denied relief by the administrator has a legal right to know the reasons why he is not entitled to relief and not an evasive or vague order. In so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he is stated to have secured 14 marks and was given 2 marks in the sports category making it total of 16. Persons up to 15 marks have been appointed. The impugned order states that his sports certificates were not considered acceptable because his full address was not mentioned. Learned Counsel for the petitioners rightly submits that the certificate mentions the name of the candidate and not the entire address. Those details can be found in the records of the concerned institution. In fact today itself in CWJC No. 8237 of 2010 considering a similar matter the Court declined interference with regard to the marks for sports certificate denied based on the enquiry conducted by the respondents including from the institution in question which was not to their satisfaction. That was fairness and reasonableness in action. The present is not. In so far as the petitioner no. 3 is concerned he secured 14 marks and 2 marks for sports certificate which is denied on the ground that the marks for Rural sports is not to be awarded. Learned Counsel for the State, invites attention of the Court to Column VIII (ii) of the advertisement and submits that no marks were to be awarded for Rural sports certificate. He then refers to the impugned order and submits that apart from the same no other certificate had been submitted. Subsequently the petitioner had sought to submit photo copy of his sports certificate from the Bihar Volleyball Association, 12th 3 Rabi Mehta Trophy which the order states that not having been annexed with the original application cannot be looked into. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the same and submits that the petitioner had submitted other acceptable certificates along with the original application. The two counter affidavits filed by the respondents are hardly helpful for adjudication at least of petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Counsel for the State lastly submitted that the matter is old and that fresh advertisement no. 1 of 2009 has been issued. It has been brought to the attention of the Court that recently a Division Bench in LPA No. 831 of 2009 and analogous cases has given direction for reworking out of vacancies as may have been available on the date of the advertisement in 2004. The impugned order dated 25.10.2009 is therefore not sustainable in its present form in so far as petitioners 1 & 2 are concerned. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 4 reminding him of his duty to pass a reasoned and speaking order by which the petitioners must be made aware of the grounds if they have to be denied selection in explicit and not speculative terms. In so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, prima facie the impugned order appears to be requiring no interference. But the petitioner no. 3 agrees to take a risk. It is therefore directed that on the date that petitioner no. 3 appears before respondent no. 4 he shall call for the original records of petitioner no. 3.If it contains sports certificate other than rural in their original records the case of petitioner no. 3 is then required to be considered in accordance with law. If no such certificates are to be found in the records, respondent no. 4 shall be at liberty to grant hearing to the petitioner on that aspect and then take 4 such appropriate action permissible to him in law against petitioner no. 3. The impugned order is set aside with directions. rder of this Court in LPA No. 831 of 2009 shall naturally have its own relevance. Let entire exercise be completed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)