IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17648 of 2011 1. Santosh Kumar Late Sidheshwar Singh R/O,Vill.- Barath,P.S.-Chauri,Dist.-Bhojpur,Presently Qr.No.D- 21/121,Tt.P.S.-Lalpania,Bokaro,Jharkhand. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through , The Chief Secretary,Government Of Bihar,Patna 2. Transport Commissioner,Bishwasraiya Bhawan,New Secretariat,Patna 3. The Secretary , Bihar Staff Selection Commission ,Patna,P.O.Veterinary College,Patna-14 4. Chairman,Bihar Staff Selection Commission Patna,P.O.Veterinary College,Patna-14 5. Deputy Secretary,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Patna,P.O. Veterinary College,Patna-14 6. Secretary , Department Of Industries,Government Of Bihar,Patna 7. Secretary , Department Of Personnel,Government Of Bihar,Patna 8. Gautam Kumar Sri Sheonandan Prasad Through Secretary,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Patna,P.O.Veterinary College,Patna-14 9. Motilal Sanatan Sri Ramdeo Nishad Through Secretary,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Patna,P.O.Veterinary College,Patna-14 10. Ravi Rahul Kumar Verma Genesh Prasad Verma Through Secretary,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Patna,P.O.Veterinary College,Patna-14 11. Sanjay Kumar Birendra Prasad Srivastava Through Secretary,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Patna,P.O.Veterinary College,Patna-14 12. Nagesh Kumar Rajdhar Choudhary Through Secretary,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Patna,P.O.Veterinary College,Patna-14 13. Dhirendra Kumar Singh Surajdip Singh Through Secretary,Bihar Staff Selection Commission,Patna,P.O.Veterinary College,Patna-14 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18216 of 2011 1. Jitendra Kumar S/O Basant Singh R/O Moh Ram Krishna Nagar, P.S.Ram Krishna Nagar, Distt-Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Old Secretariat Building, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel &Administrative Reforms Old Secretariat Building, Patna 3. The State Transport Commissioner Government Of Bihar, Transport Bhawan, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna 4. The Secretary Transport Government Of Bihar, 2 Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 5. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary Veterinary College, Patna 6. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary Veterinary College, Patna 7. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary Veterinary College, Patna ---------------------------------- 2. 19.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the „Commission‟). The questions of law for consideration have been dealt in detail in C.W.J.C. No. 3663 of 2011 and the Court shall therefore proceed to deal with the facts of the present case. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his experience certificates in Form-I without the registration number allotted to the workshop in question under the Factories Act. The additional question is if the applicant had also submitted necessary proof that the workshop had a valid registration during the period that the candidate had undergone training in the workshop. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when on the earlier occasion this Court remanded matters after interpreting the words “repairing, overhauling and inspection”, the matter was still under consideration of the 3 respondents and the selection process had not commenced. Therefore if after the cut off date fixed in the advertisement that is 21.9.2007 any candidate removed the deficiency by furnishing the required information of the registration number under the Factories Act or a valid registration during the period of training, the application became subsequently valid under the advertisement and had necessarily to be considered. It was next submitted that there shall be no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution if the application of the petitioners after removal of such deficiencies is accepted. The matter would have been different if no information with regard to training in a workshop had been submitted. The nature of information furnished was at best irregular as it remained wanting on certain aspects which were subsequently reconfirmed. The last argument was with regard to arbitrariness and hostile discrimination by calling for interview similarly situated candidates who had not furnished the requisite information with regard to the registration number under the Factories Act and the continuance of the registration during the 4 training. The Court in similar application has already held that the candidature of the petitioner has to stand on its own strength. He has first to establish that he submitted an application in accordance with law. If he did not and the respondents have accepted the application of certain others contrary to law, the petitioner cannot ask for perpetuation of illegality. In similar matters directions have already been given to the Commission to issue fresh interview call to the 22 candidates in question but only after fresh scrutiny of their original applications for having fulfilled all the conditions of the advertisement as discussed in the orders of the Court. If the petitioner submitted his application as on the cut off date without the registration number of the workshop under the Factory Act or the necessary certificate that during the period of training the workshop retained a valid registration, it was clearly an incomplete application liable for rejection under the terms of the Advertisement. That this Court may have given directions for re-scrutiny of the application after interpreting the words “repairing, overhauling and 5 inspection” cannot be construed as a liberty to an applicant to rectify the defects in his original application. If the original application was defective, the defect operates from negativity and the application stood rejected at the very inception never to be considered. This aspect of the law has been considered in detail by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3402 of 2009 when in somewhat similar circumstances by reason of the orders of remand of the Court the respondents permitted rectifying the defect in the original application which the Court did not approve of. It has been held in (2011) 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty) :- “37. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin.” 6 In C.W.J.C. No. 18216 of 2011 the petitioner is alleged to have furnished his experience certificates without the registration number granted under the Factories Act to the workshop in question. Learned counsel submits that certain others who obtained training during the same duration as the petitioner are amongst the 22 persons call for interview. By not calling the petitioner he is being subjected to hostile discrimination. Counsel for the Commission has submitted that it was for the petitioner to state with certainty that the others called had also not furnished the requisite information with regard to the registration number and continuance of the same. Merely because the petitioner may have obtained training during the same duration, would not lend validity of his application if he never furnished the registration number of the workshop as also the validity for the duration that he underwent his training. If the respondents have called any other for interview contrary to the conditions of 7 advertisement that cannot vest a right in the petitioner to demand perpetuation of illegality. The Commission is obliged before issuance of the fresh interview call to any of the 22 persons to first scrutinize if any of them fall in the category as alleged by the petitioner when obviously such person cannot be summoned for interview. The writ applications are dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)