Case: The State of Bihar &amp; Ors Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan &amp; Anr

were published on 26.12.2007. Observing so the learned Single Judge held that in absence of necessary pleadings that the petitioner had annexed his NCC B certificate alongwith his original application, the Court finds it difficult to issue any positive direction with regard to the consideration of his candidature. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for appointment on the post of Constable under advertisement no. 1 of 2004. Having applied in response to the same, he appeared for physical test on 8.5.2006 when he was given 12 marks. The grievance is that he has been denied the benefit of 5 marks under the advertisement with regard to NCC-B certificate possessed by him as provided for in the advertisement. In this manner, while his marks were total 17 making him eligible for appointment, those with lesser marks have been appointed when his candidate has been considered on the basis of 12 1narks only. There is no pleading in the writ application that the petitioner has annexed his NCC-B certificate in support of his claim along with the original application. It appears from the pleadings that he did submit the same after the physical test on 15.1.2007 before the results were published on 26.12.2007. Strong reliance has been placed on the information furnished to the petitioner under Right to Information Act by Annexure-8 dated 23.6.2008 in support of the plea. In absence of necessary pleadings that the petitioner had annexed his NCC-B certificate along with his original application, this Court finds it difficult to issue any positive direction with regard to consideration of the candidature of the petitioner. If the petitioner had originally annexed his NCC-B certificate along with his application, naturally he is required to be considered on basis of 17 marks as mentioned in Annexurte-8 dated 23.6.2008. But, if the petitioner had not annexed such documents with his original application and submitted the same subsequently after physical test but before the publication of the results, the matter shall remain in the discretion of the Respondents and it is not possible for this Court to pass any positive orders on the aspect of consideration of his candidature. The Court is of such view for the reason that if this Court was to direct any relaxation of any condition, it would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by a judicial order. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms for an appropriate decision by the Respondents within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/ or production of a copy of this order. 7. Thus, as per the pleadings in the earlier writ petition being CWJC No.5431 of 2008, there was no averment in support of his claim that he had annexed his NCC B certificate alongwith the original application. However, when subsequently the present writ petition was filed, the original writ petitioner came out with a contrary stand that he had produced all the necessary documents including the NCC B certificate alongwith his original application. The aforesaid is nothing but an afterthought. Having failed to get any positive direction in the earlier writ petition on the ground that there is no pleading that he had annexed his NCC B certificate alongwith the original application, he is not entitled to any positive direction and the original writ petitioner cannot be permitted to improve his case in the subsequent litigation, when it was not his case in the earlier round of litigation. 8. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that there is no pleading in the writ petition that the petitioner had annexed his NCC B certificate alongwith the original application. Once, it is found that the respondent No.1– original writ petitioner did not submit the photocopy of the NCC B certificate alongwith the original application which was the requirement as per the advertisement and the cut-off date as per the advertisement was 22.02.2004 and he produced the same after the physical test on 15.01.2007, the appointing authority rightly held that he shall not be entitled to additional five marks of NCC B certificate. Though in the select list dated 08.09.2007, he was awarded 17 marks, which included five additional marks of NCC B certificate, the appointing authority disagreed with the same on the ground that as photocopy of the NCC B certificate was not produced alongwith his application form, which was the requirement as per the advertisement, he shall not be entitled to five additional marks of NCC B certificate. Therefore, when a decision was taken on the representation made by the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner which was pursuant to the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being CWJC No.5431 of 2008, the authority rightly refused to allot/award five additional marks of NCC B certificate. 9. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC B certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC B certificate. In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC B certificate.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. Thus, as per the pleadings in the earlier writ petition being CWJC No.5431 of 2008, there was no averment in support of his claim that he had annexed his NCC B certificate alongwith the original application. However, when subsequently the present writ petition was filed, the original writ petitioner came out with a contrary stand that he had produced all the necessary documents including the NCC B certificate alongwith his original application. The aforesaid is nothing but an afterthought. Having failed to get any positive direction in the earlier writ petition on the ground that there is no pleading that he had annexed his NCC B certificate alongwith the original application, he is not entitled to any positive direction and the original writ petitioner cannot be permitted to improve his case in the subsequent litigation, when it was not his case in the earlier round of litigation.8. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that there is no pleading in the writ petition that the petitioner had annexed his NCC B certificate alongwith the original application. Once, it is found that the respondent No.1– original writ petitioner did not submit the photocopy of the NCC B certificate alongwith the original application which was the requirement as per the advertisement and the cut-off date as per the advertisement was 22.02.2004 and he produced the same after the physical test on 15.01.2007, the appointing authority rightly held that he shall not be entitled to additional five marks of NCC B certificate. Though in the select list dated 08.09.2007, he was awarded 17 marks, which included five additional marks of NCC B certificate, the appointing authority disagreed with the same on the ground that as photocopy of the NCC B certificate was not produced alongwith his application form, which was the requirement as per the advertisement, he shall not be entitled to five additional marks of NCC B certificate. Therefore, when a decision was taken on the representation made by the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner which was pursuant to the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition being CWJC No.5431 of 2008, the authority rightly refused to allot/award five additional marks of NCC B certificate.9. As per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority. Also, only those documents, which are submitted alongwith the application form, which are required to be submitted as per the advertisement have to be considered. Therefore, when the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner did not produce the photocopy of the NCC B certificate alongwith the original application as per the advertisement and the same was submitted after a period of three years from the cut-off date and that too after the physical test, he was not entitled to the additional five marks of the NCC B certificate. In these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in directing the appellants to appoint the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner on the post of Constable considering the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC B certificate.