IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14555 of 2011 Jitendra Kumar S/O Ram Nav Vinod Singh R/O Vill.- Jalalpur, P.S.- Dariyapur, Distt.- Saran At Chapra Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Additional Director General of Police, B.M.P, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Tirhut Range, Board No.2, Hajipur-Cum-Assistant to Inspector General of Police, (Q), Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commandant, B.M.P.5, Phulwari Sharif, Patna. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur. 7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police Magadh Range, Gaya-Cum- Chairman, Tirhut Board No.-2, Hajipur, Vaishali. 8. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 02. 20.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned counsel for the State. This is the second round of litigation on behalf of the petitioner where challenge is made to Annexure-4. This is the order passed by the DIG, Magadh Range, Gaya on the earlier direction of the Court to consider the claim of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances (Annexure-2). The origin of the present litigation is that the petitioner was an applicant for appointment on the post of a constable in terms of Advertisement No.2 of 2004. All the candidates were required to fill up the application form, give the details therein and based on the information so furnished the applications of such candidates were sorted and classified. So far as petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute that he did not fill up the column with regard to reservation or the caste to which he belonged, seeking reservation. Though it is the case of 2 the petitioner that he had annexed the caste certificate so that he may be given the benefit of reservation. The omission to fill up the declaration is being dubbed by the petitioner to be a minor omission which has caused prejudice in matter of selection because respondents have treated the petitioner to belong to general category. He did not have the requisite age for the general category as the mandated age laid down for the general category is said to be 23 years. Petitioner’s age was 24 years 7 months on the date when his claim was rejected. The learned single Judge has considered the matter earlier and directed the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner in light of his assertions and averments. However, respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and have passed an order rejecting his claim on the ground of over-age, in absence of a declaration made by the petitioner in his application form. There was no option left for the authorities but to treat him in the general category. This Court would be in agreement with the findings and reasoning given by the DIG, Magadh Range for the simple reason that any scrutiny of application has to be made on the basis of declaration made by the applicants. It is not the business of the respondents to tinker with the same to give benefit of doubt extending the benefit of reservation. No claim as such was made in the column which was required to be filled 3 up by the candidate. There was a universal thumb rule applied that in all such matters where no declaration was made, candidates would be treated in general category and in my opinion, that was the correct view to take in absence of any assertion or declaration in the column provided. Any indulgence in favour of petitioner will have a chaotic effect specially when selections have already been made and appointment carried out. Petitioner cannot be given the benefit of his own laches. If he could not fill up the application form properly it is too late in the day now to interfere with the reasoning given in Anneuxre-4. If petitioner suffered due to him being treated in the general category the blame lies with him and not the respondents. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)