IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 483 of 2011 (S/S) Neeraj Dobhal and others ………..Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Present: Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 06.05.2011 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The petitioners were the applicants for the post of constable in Civil Police, Fire Brigade and P.A.C. in the State of Uttarakhand. These appointments were district cadre appointments as it is evident from the advertisement dated 26.11.2010 annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. After being successful in the physical test, written test and medical examination, the petitioners were selected as recruit constable/P.A.C. by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, but vide order dated 6.5.2011, the selection/appointment of the petitioners on the said post has been rejected. Hence this writ petition. The petitioners contend that by the impugned order dated 6.5.2011, the appointment of the petitioners has 2 been cancelled and therefore, the petitioners allege that there is violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. There cannot be a violation of principles of natural justice and fair play inasmuch as there is always a condition in such appointments that the appointment is conditioned upon the scrutiny of the Character Certificates and other Certificates and in case anything contrary is found, then the appointment shall be rejected. Since it was subsequently discovered that the petitioners have applied for more than one centre instead of only one centre, the appointment of the petitioners was cancelled vide order-dated 6.5.2011. The principles of natural justice and fair play cannot be applied in every case. The principles of natural justice and fair play is not a “Bull in a China Shop” but in essence it is good conscience in governance. This is what has been said by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in the seminal judgment of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) 1 SCC 405: “…For fairness itself is a flexible, pragmatic and relative concept not a rigid, ritualistic or sophisticated abstraction. It is not a bull in a china shop, nor a bee in one’s bonnet. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more - but nothing less.” Since in the present case, it cannot be denied that the petitioners had violated the necessary condition of the advertisement and had applied for more than one centres and what is important is that they had given an undertaking that they have not applied for any other centre knowing fully well that it is a false undertaking. In the present case, the petitioner had applied in response 3 to advertisement dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). Condition clearly stipulated that a candidate shall apply only for one centre meaning thereby one district centre and in case a candidate applies for more than two centres, his application will stand rejected. Apart from that the advertisement also prescribes a certificate or an undertaking, which had to be given by the applicant, inter alia, stating that they have not applied for any other centre except one centre to which they applied. In view of the said advertisement, the petitioners have clearly violated the condition and if any interference is made by this Court it will amount to changing the mandatory condition laid down in the advertisement itself, which is not permissible. Even though there may be such cases where due to inadvertence and for any other reasons the State might have selected or granted appointment to a candidate who had also violated such condition as the petitioners have done, even then this Court cannot grant the same relief to the petitioners inasmuch as two wrongs do not make a right as has clearly been stated in a decision of Supreme Court namely Directorate of Film Festivals and others Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and others (2007) 4 SCC 737. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.5.2011 Kuldeep