IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7650 of 2009 MADHU KANT RANJAN . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. A.K. Choudhary & Mr. M.K. Jha, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Ranjit Sinha, Advocate 05. 01.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Constable under Advertisement No. 01 of 2004 in the Backward Caste category. He secured 12 marks in the physical test. Candidates possessing N.C.C.-B certificate were entitled to five additional marks. The petitioner was aggrieved that being possessed of such certificate he was entitled to a total of 17 marks and had been denied appointment, while those with lesser marks in his category were appointed. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5431 of 2008. This Court observed that there was no pleading in the writ application that the petitioner had annexed his N.C.C.-B certificate along with his original application. It appeared from the pleadings that he submitted the N.C.C.-B certificate after the physical test on 15.1.2007, but before the final 2 results were published on 26.12.2007. The Court therefore opined that in absence of necessary pleadings that he had annexed the N.C.C.-B certificate along with the original application, it was not possible to give any positive directions for consideration of his candidature. The Court observed that if he had annexed the certificate, he was entitled to the consideration on basis of 17 marks, but if he had not annexed with his original application and submitted the same subsequently after physical test or publication of result the matter remained in the discretion of the respondents. The Court could not direct any relaxation of the conditions of advertisement. The respondents have then passed a fresh order dated 1.4.2009 rejecting his claim for inclusion of five additional marks on basis of his N.C.C.-B certificate. It was submitted that in C.W.J.C. No. 5431 of 2008 by Annexure-6, it was the specific case of the petitioner that he had submitted his N.C.C.-B certificate along with the original application itself. The Court had therefore called for the original records of C.W.J.C. No. 5431 of 2008 while hearing the present matter. Annexure-6 to the earlier 3 writ application is a communication dated 11.1.2008, addressed to the Director General of Police, Bihar. It makes a bald statement that he had submitted his graduate qualifications and N.C.C.-B certificate and other relevant papers. Having learnt on 10.1.2007 that his N.C.C.-B certificate marks have not been added as directed he gave a fresh photo-copy of such certificate on 15.1.2007. This Court is more than satisfied that the order dated 9.2.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 5431 of 2008 was based on the records and stands corroborated again on re- verification of the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that under the Right to Information Act he has been furnished information on 23.6.2008 that five marks had been added giving him 17 marks and his name recommended on 18.9.2007 in the first list. The only issue for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner had submitted his N.C.C.-B certificate along with the original application. There is still no material on the record to come to a positive finding on that aspect. On the one hand, the petitioner asserts having submitted such document. On the other hand, he is unable to substantiate his assertion and his own documents 4 leave a serious doubt about the correctness of the claim. The impugned order dated 1.4.2009 states that in the daily result mark sheet of the physical test held on 15.1.2007, he was given only 12 marks. Subsequently, in the master chart he was given 17 marks by adding five marks for his N.C.C.-B certificate. The Chairman of the selection Board on 25.9.2007 had stated that due to rains on the day of physical selection water entered in the tent destroying documents. The candidates were then required to resubmit the necessary certificate. The first list of persons recommended was dated 13.12.2007. The petitioner’s name was not in that list quite. Obviously he was being considered on basis of 12 marks, when his N.C.C.-B certificate not being available five additional marks were not granted to him. This list dated 13.12.2007 was approved on 24.12.2007. The candidates were required to bring their original N.C.C.-B certificate on the date of the physical test for cross verification from that appended to their application form. The impugned order rightly holds that even if due to rains on the date of the physical test, the copy of the N.C.C.-B certificate being produced by the petitioner got damaged due to rains, at least his original 5 application in response to the advertisement should have still contained a copy of his N.C.C.-B certificate. It was not so. This Court does not find any reason to arrive at any different conclusion then than in the impugned order. If the advertisement required the N.C.C.-B certificate to be enclosed, and if a claim was made thereunder, naturally the petitioner would have been given 17 marks on the first date itself and not 12 marks. If he had been given 17 marks on the very first occasion his name would have found place in the first recommendation dated 13.12.2007. Even, if the second copy produced by him on the date of selection got damaged due to rains, the impugned order rightly holds that the original application should still have contained a copy of his N.C.C.-B certificate. In the entirety of the discussion, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court that he had enclosed his N.C.C.-B certificate along with his original application. The impugned order being reasoned based on a discussion containing application of mind by a process of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion of fact that the authority was 6 not satisfied that the petitioner had annexed his original N.C.C.-B certificate along with his application, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere with the order dated 1.4.2009. This Court exercising powers of judicial review over the impugned order cannot act as an appellate authority. The question is if the order is reasoned, based upon rationale reasoning and on discussion of facts is the conclusion sustainable. In the Case of H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Karnal and Others Versus M/s. Gopi Nath and Sons and Others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 312, dealing with the powers of judicial review the Supreme Court at paragraph-8 has held that:- “8. But here what was assailed was the correctness of findings as if before an appellate forum. Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in 7 judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself.” The application is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)