Gulam Shadik vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1884 Jhar

                                 -1-



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        L.P.A. No.226 of 2018
                                    ----

1. Gulam Shadik, aged about 26 S/o Shri Zahir Mansuri resident of village Chiniya, P.O. and P.S. Chiniya, District Garhwa.

2. Dharmendra Choudhary, aged about 28 S/o Satendra Choudhary resident of Tola Leduka P.O. Kutmu P.S. Pandu, District Palamu.

                                                ...     ...     Appellants
                                  Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurva, Ranchi P.O. and P.S. Dhurva, District Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Bhawan, Dhurva, Ranchi P.O. and P.S. Dhurva, District Ranchi.

3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, having office at Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

4. Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having office at at Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

                                                ...     ... Respondents
                                   -------
CORAM :           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                                   ------
For the Appellants             : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate

For the Respondent-SSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate For the Respondent State : Mrs. Neelam Tiwary, Sr. S.C.-II Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, A.C.to Sr. SC-II

--------

ORAL JUDGMENT Order No. 07 : Dated 14th June, 2021

With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been

done through video conferencing and there is no complaint

whatsoever regarding the visual/audio connectivity.

I.A. No. 4034 of 2020

This interlocutory application has been preferred under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 136 days in

preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and

submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that

the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the

appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 136 days

in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 4034 of 2020 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 226 of 2018

5. The instant intra-Court appeal is under Clause 10 of Letters

Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna directed against the

order/judgment dated 16.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of

this Court in W.P.(C) No.6272 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the

writ petition has been dismissed by declining to quash the result of

preliminary examination published on 30.10.2017 for Jharkhand

Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017,

hereinafter referred as the Competitive Examination in question,

pursuant to Advertisement No.05/2017 on the ground that the

reservation policy has not been followed in the preliminary

examination result in its true letter and spirit so far as Extreme

Backward Class (Schedule-1) [in short "EBC"] and Backward Class

(Schedule-2) [in short "BC"] are concerned.

6. The brief facts of the case which are required to be

enumerated herein read hereunder as :-

The writ petitioners (two in number) have found themselves to

be eligible for consideration of selection for the post of Police Sub-

Inspector and as such, they made application for consideration in

pursuance of the Advertisement No. 05/2017 published by

Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.

They participated in the process of selection which were in

three stages, (i) the preliminary examination which was conducted

on 31.08.2017, result of which was published on 30.10.2017

wherein the petitioner No.1, who had applied under OBC-1 category,

got total 332.6897959200 marks out of 360 while the petitioner No.2

had applied under OBC-1 category and had got 329.4145161000

marks out of 360. The total number of candidates for participating in

the main examination has been decided to be selected as 15095

candidates. The concern of the writ petitioners was that the result of

the preliminary examination was not category wise and the cut-off

marks of only four categories have been published on the internet

i.e., Unreserved Category, Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and

Primitive Tribe by furnishing the cut of marks category wise.

It is the further case of the writ petitioners that although in the

advertisement being Advertisement No.05/2017 as under Clause-2

thereof it has been stipulated that there are total five number of

categories i.e. Unreserved Category, Schedule Caste, Schedule

Tribe, Other Backward Class-1 and Backward Class-2 but in the

result of the preliminary examination, the cut off marks were

published only for Unreserved Category, Schedule Caste, Schedule

Tribe and Primitive Tribe and as such, no candidate of Other

Backward Class-1 and Backward Class-2 have been selected while

as per the advertisement, total number of vacancies for Other

Backward Class-1 are 209 out of 3019 and total number of

vacancies for Backward Class-2 are 172 out of 3019.

It is the further case of the writ petitioners that they came to

know from the website of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission

that no candidate belonging to the Other Backward Class-1 and

Backward Class-2 has been shortlisted or selected even though the

cut-off marks for OBC-1 and BC-2 has been published. On the basis

of the aforesaid background, writ petitions were filed before this

Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Before the writ court, the Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission had appeared and had filed counter affidavit wherein it

has inter alia been stated by making reference of Clause 11(iii) of

the Advertisement No.05/2017, the advertisement in question, that

five times candidates were to be shortlisted in accordance with merit

in which five times candidates were to be shortlisted for Mains

Examination in each category. It has further been stated that total

3019 posts were requisitioned by the State Government under

different categories. The Commission, while answering the issue

about non-publication of result of preliminary examination under

EBC-I and BC-II category, has stated that the State Government

since had requested 209 posts for EBC-I category and 172 posts for

BC-II category for the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police and

equivalent posts and, as such, advertisement was issued for

considering the candidature of the candidates first by conducting the

preliminary test examination and after its conclusion, the result was

published on 30.10.2017 and against 3019 vacancies, 15095

candidates were shortlisted from different categories for the Mains

Examination and notice to the said effect was published, as would

be evident from Annexure-4 appended to the writ petition.

The allegation as has been leveled by the writ petitioners

before the writ court was that the candidates of EBC-I category and

BC-II category have not been shortlisted/declared successful in the

preliminary test result but the same has seriously been disputed by

making assertion that against 209 vacancies of EBC-I category,

1364 candidates have been declared successful and similarly,

against 172 vacancies for BC-II category, 1670 candidates have

been declared successful in the preliminary test examination and to

substantiate the aforesaid fact, a chart of the shortlisted candidates

falling under EBC-I and BC-II has been appended as Annexure-B to

the counter affidavit, basing upon the same it has been stated that

there is no illegality in conducting the examination and publishing

the result and as such, the prayer has been made before the writ

court for dismissal of the writ petition.

Learned Single Judge heard the matter and decided the issue

by taking into consideration the fact about the procedure which has

been adopted by the Commission for shortlisting the candidates so

far as it relates to the preliminary examination. It has also been

taken into consideration the total number of candidates in the EBC-I

and BC-II categories and taking into consideration Annexure-B to

the counter affidavit filed by the Commission wherein it has been

stated that against the total 209 vacancies for EBC-I candidates and

total 172 vacancies for BC-II candidates, 1670 candidates who got

more marks in comparison to that of the writ petitioners, have been

shortlisted for the main examinations. It has also been considered

about the uniformity adopted by the Commission in making

selection, which according to the Commission, was uniform to all

who have participated in the preliminary examination. Further, the

consideration has been made with respect to the assertion of the

Commission who has disclosed before the writ court that the

petitioners have got 332 and 329 marks respectively while the last

selected candidates of their category has got more than 335 marks

and as such, no interference has been committed.

Further the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment

passed by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of

Lakshman Toppo and others v. The State of Jharkhand and

Others passed in L.P.A. No. 467 of 2015 wherein the principle

about the applicability of reservation benefits in the preliminary

examination which has been treated to be policy decision of the

Government, has been laid down and as such, it has been

propounded therein that no writ of mandamus can be issued to the

State to extend the benefits in the preliminary examination. The

order passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of

the instant appeal.

7. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants-writ petitioners, has argued with vehemence and has

submitted that the reservation policy has not been followed in the

preliminary examination which resulted into inadequate

representation of the members of EBC-I and BC-II categories and,

therefore, the entire selection process ought to have been cancelled

by the learned Single Judge since the basic principle of following the

reservation in the preliminary examination has not been followed,

but the same has not been considered by the learned Single Judge,

therefore, it requires to be considered in the instant intra-court

appeal.

It has further been argued that there is no justification

furnished by the Commission in not disclosing as to why the criteria

of reservation has not been stipulated in the advertisement in

question pertaining to the performance of one or the other candidate

of different categories in the preliminary examination while the same

has been stipulated with respect to Unreserved Category, Schedule

Caste, Schedule Tribe and Primitive Tribe.

8. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the

Commission has defended the order passed by the learned Single

Judge inter alia on the ground that the learned Single Judge has

taken into consideration the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Lakshman Toppo and others v. The State

of Jharkhand and Others passed in L.P.A. No. 467 of 2015

wherein the ratio has been laid down relying upon the judgment

rendered in the case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service

Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and Others reported in (2009) 5

SCC 1 laying down that the applicability of reservation in preliminary

test is a policy decision and since the State of Jharkhand has not

formulated any policy decision to provide benefit of reservation in

the preliminary test, therefore, no mandamus can be issued.

According to learned counsel, since the ratio has already been

laid down by the Division Bench vide judgment rendered in the case

of Lakshman Toppo and others v. The State of Jharkhand and

Others (Supra), the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have

committed any error in rejecting the grounds of the writ petitioners

for providing benefits of reservation in the preliminary examination.

Further, the learned Single Judge has considered the fact about

inadequate reservation to the candidates belonging to EBC-I and

BC-II categories and found from the material available in the counter

affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission that there is no

inadequacy of representation of the candidates belonging to these

two categories and therefore, the learned Single Judge is right in

dismissing the writ petition.

9. The learned counsel for the State has defended the order

passed by the learned Single Judge by accepting the submission

advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the Commission.

10. The Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the material available on record as also the

finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order,

deems it fit and proper first to refer about the advertisement in order

to reach to the rightful conclusion. The advertisement has been

annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition being Advertisement

No.05/2017 wherefrom it is evident that online applications from

suitable candidates were invited allowing such candidates to

participate in the process of selection for appointment on the post of

Sub-Inspector and its equivalent posts through Jharkhand

Combined Police Sub-Inspector Competitive Examination, 2017.

Under the caption heading "Details of Vacancies", category wise

vacancy has been furnished, referring therein as :-

  Name of the Post            Total      Category wise vacancy      Horizontal
                             Vacancy                               reservation
                                                                      in total
                                                                     vacancy
                                                                     (Female)
Sub-Inspector           in    2483      Unreserved - 1274
District/Unit Police                    Schedule Caste - 218

                                        E.B.C.-(Sch.-I) - 166
                                        B.C. (Sch. - 2) - 141
Sub-Inspector           in     488      Unreserved - 244
Special Branch                          Schedule Caste - 49

                                        E.B.C.-(Sch.-I) - 39
                                        B.C. (Sch. - 2) - 29
Sergeant                       48       Unreserved - 25
                                        Schedule Caste - 05

                                        E.B.C.-(Sch.-I) - 04
                                        B.C. (Sch. - 2) - 02

Under Clause 9, nature of examination for selection has been

stipulated which has been decided to be conducted through

Computer Based Test (CBT). It has been further stipulated under the

said clause that the selection in the preliminary examination will be

made on the basis of merit list of one or the other candidates based

upon the marks while in the written examination, the marks of one of

- 10 -

the other candidates will be normalized and on the basis of the merit

list the candidates would be selected.

The examination was decided to be conducted in four stages

(i) Preliminary Examination (ii) Main Examination (iii) Physical

Examination and (iv) Medical Examination.

It is evident from Annexure-4 annexed to the writ petition that

the normalised marks of candidates category wise has been

furnished as :-

      Category           Normalised marks           Date of Birth
                             obtained
Merit Wise              335.8122013800               02.02.1993
Schedule Caste          273.1920151680               10.01.1989
Schedule Tribe          184.2451628484               22.10.1991
Primitive Tribe         68.2451628484                08.05.1991

It is further evident from the details of Advertisement

No.05/2017 wherein the benefit of reservation has been decided to

be given as per the stipulation made under Condition No.7 under the

caption "Reservation" wherein it has been stated that the benefit of

reservation is to be provided to one or the other candidate on the

basis of the rules of reservation implemented by the State of

Jharkhand.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners

has vehemently argued that the benefit of reservation ought to have

been granted to the candidates belonging to EBC-I and BC-II

categories even in the preliminary examination and that was the

moot question for adjudication of the litigation before the writ court

as well as in the instant appeal.

- 11 -

11. This Court has put a categorical question to the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners as to whether

the State of Jharkhand has implemented any policy of reservation

making it application even in preliminary examination but he has

failed to give satisfactory answer in this regard, rather, he has tried

to impress upon the Court that the benefit of reservation has been

decided to be granted in the preliminary examination by the

erstwhile State of Bihar and that has been adopted by the State of

Jharkhand in pursuance to the provision of Section 85 of the Bihar

Re-organization Act, 2000 but no such adoption of the aforesaid rule

enacted by the erstwhile State of Bihar has been brought on record

either before the writ court or before this Court and as such, we

have not found substance in the aforesaid argument rather found

substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the learned

counsel appearing for the Commission that save and except the

reservation policy of the State of Jharkhand formulated in the year

2001, there is no other reservation policy making the reservation

applicable in the preliminary examination while the reservation policy

of the year 2001 is applicable only in the main selection and

according to him, since preliminary examination is by way of

shortlisting of number of candidates having no bearing in

preparation of merit list of one or the other candidates, rather, the

merit list is to be prepared only on the basis of the performance of

one of the other candidates in the main examination, physical

examination and medical examination and in absence of any rule,

- 12 -

making the reservation policy applicable even in the preliminary

examination, we have no option but to reject the contention of the

learned counsel appearing the appellants-writ petitioners to that

effect.

It requires to refer herein that we have also gone across the

notification issued by the State of Jharkhand dated 9th November,

2002, as has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

Referring the same, it has been stated at paragraph 18 to the writ

petition that the examination for direct recruitment in the State of

Jharkhand ought to have been conducted as per the Bihar Civil

Services Rules, 1951 which according to the writ petitioner, has

been adopted by the State of Jharkhand as has been annexed as

Annexure-7 to the same but the aforesaid stand is also not fit to be

accepted as because the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch)

and Bihar Subordinate Civil Services Recruitment Rules, 1951 has

been adopted by the State of Jharkhand in pursuance to the

provision of Section 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 which

according to us, the aforesaid recruitment rule of the year 1951

having been adopted by the State of Jharkhand pertains to the

recruitment of Civil Services and the Junior Civil Services which has

got nothing to do with the reservation policy as because the State of

Jharkhand has come out with a regulation for reservation for fulfilling

the post and by providing the reservation benefits to the member of

the Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and other backward community.

12. We have gone across the aforesaid Reservation Regulation of

- 13 -

the year 2001 wherein it has not been provided to give benefit of

reservation in the preliminary examination. We have come to this

finding by taking into consideration the judgment relied upon by the

learned Single Judge rendered by Division bench of this Court in

the case of Lakshman Toppo and others v. The State of

Jharkhand and Others (Supra), wherein the issue fell for

consideration as to whether not providing reservation in the

preliminary test can be said to be in accordance with law and while

answering the issue, the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court

has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Andhra

Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and

Others (Supra) and has come to the conclusion that if there is no

policy pertaining to provide benefit of reservation in the preliminary

examination, it will not be appropriate for the writ court to issue

mandamus commanding the State to formulate a policy to that

effect. Therefore, according to us, the consideration about non-

availability of benefits to be provided to one or the other candidates

in the preliminary examination is not available in the State of

Jharkhand.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh

Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and Others

(Supra) at paragraph 26 has held which reads hereunder as :-

"26. We may notice that in Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1996) 11 SCC 742] , Rule 13 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 prescribing the mode of conducting preliminary as also main examination had been interpreted, opining: (SCC p. 748, paras 14-16)

- 14 -

"14. ... What requires to be done is that the Public Service Commission has to consider the number of vacancies notified or likely to be filled in the year of recruitment for which notification was published. Then candidates who had appeared for the preliminary examination and qualified for main examination are to be screened by the test. The object is to eliminate unduly long list of candidates so that opportunity to sit for main examination should be given to candidates numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies in various services; in other words for every one post/vacancy there should be 15 candidates. There would be wider scope to get best of the talent by way of competition in the examination. The ultimate object is to get at least three candidates or as is prescribed, who may be called for viva voce. Therefore, the lowest range of aggregate marks as cut-off for general candidates should be so worked out as to get the required number of candidates including OBCs, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The lowest range would, therefore, be worked out in such a way that candidates numbering 15 times the notified posts/vacancies would be secured so as to afford an opportunity to the candidates to compete in the main examination.

15. Under the proviso, if that range has not been reached by the candidates belonging to the SCs or the STs, there may be 5% further cut-off from the last range worked out for the general candidates so as to declare them as qualified for appearing in the main examination. In other words, where candidates belonging to the SCs and STs numbering 15 times the total vacancies reserved for them are not available then the Service Commission has to go down further and cut off 5% of the marks from the lowest of the range prescribed for general candidates and then declare as eligible the SC and ST candidates who secured 5% less than the lowest range fixed by PSC for general candidates so as to enable them to appear for the main examination. The candidates who thus obtain qualifying marks are eligible to appear and write the main examination. The respective proportion of 1:3 or as may be prescribed and candidates who qualified in the main examination will be called by the Commission, in their discretion, for interview. The Commission shall award marks to each candidate interviewed by them, having regard to their character, personality, address, physique and knowledge of Rajasthani culture as is in vogue as per rules. However, for selection to the Rajasthan Police Service, candidates having „C‟ Certificate of NCC will be given preference. The marks so awarded shall be added to the marks obtained in the main examination by each such candidate.

16. In working out this procedure, if the minimum of 15 times of the candidates are identified and results declared, it would not be necessary to pick up more general/reserved candidates. It would not be necessary to declare the result of more than 15 times the total notified vacancies/posts so as to enable them to compete in the main examination. The object of screening test is to eliminate unduly long number of persons to appear for main examination. If more candidates are called by declaring their result in preliminary examination, the object of Rule 13 would be frustrated."

- 15 -

In view of the aforesaid decision, the reservation policy is not

applicable in the preliminary test.

13. The further issue is that the writ petitioners can have right to

question the process of selection and law is settled in this regard

that in the recruitment process it is the prerogative of the recruiting

authority to frame out their rule or prescribe mode of selection and

eligibility criteria. The reference in this regard may be made to the

judgment rendered in the case of Chandigarh Administratiion

through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh

v. Usha Kheterpal Waie and Others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 645

wherein at paragraph 22 it has been laid down that it is for the rule

making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of

selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts

and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench

upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the

qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and

has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the

post. For ready reference Para 22 thereof is being quoted hereunder

:-

22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (See J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. [(1990) 1 SCC 288] and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632]) In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility

- 16 -

criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of PhD is unreasonable.

Further, the judgment rendered in the case of P.U.Joshi and

Others v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others reported

in (2003) 2 SCC 632 in the matter of policy of the Government, the

scope of judicial review is very limited.

14. As would be evident from the Condition No.7 of the

advertisement wherein it has been stipulated that the benefit of

reservation is to be given on the basis of Rules of Reservation

adopted by the State of Jharkhand. Admittedly herein, the

Regulation of 2001 for providing reservation to one or the other

categories of the candidates has been notified which does not

contain the benefit of reservation to be provided in preliminary

examination and in absence thereof, no benefit can be directed to

be given in the preliminary examination by providing benefit of

reservation to one or the other reserved category.

Further, the writ petitioners had made their applications on the

basis of advertisement making no reference of any benefit of

reservation to be provided in the result of the preliminary

examination and as such, at this stage, they cannot be allowed to

seek a direction from this Court to direct the State authority to

provide benefit of reservation in the preliminary examination which

cannot be directed to be granted, it is for the reason that the writ

court by way of issuing writ of mandamus cannot dictate the State

Government to make out a rule or regulation pertaining to the rules

of recruitment or reservation policy since it pertains to the policy

- 17 -

decision which is to be formulated by the State not by the Court of

law.

Further, the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to seek relief on

this ground since they have participated in the process of selection

by going across the different conditions of the advertisement where

no benefit of reservation has been provided to be given in the result

of preliminary examination and it is settled that once the process of

selection began and the candidates have been found to be

unsuccessful, they cannot be allowed to turn around and question

the terms and conditions of advertisement directly or indirectly.

Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G. Sarana Vs.

University of Lucknow & Ors. reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585,

wherein at paragraph 15, it has been held that if a candidate did not

before appearing for the interview at the time of the interview raise

even his little finger against the Constitution of the Selection

Committee, rather he seems to have voluntarily appeared before the

Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable

recommendation from it. Having done so it is not now open to him to

turn round and question the Constitution of the Committee. Failure

to take the plea at an earlier stage created a power of waiver against

him.

Reference may also be made to the judgment rendered by the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Omprakash Shukla Vs.

Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. reported in (1986) (sup) SCC

- 18 -

285, wherein at Paragraph-24 it has been laid down that if a

candidate had appeared in the examination without protest, he

cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226

realizing that he would not succeed in the examination

Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment

rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Marripati

Nagaraja Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2007)

11 SCC 522 wherein at paragraph-19 it has been laid down that the

appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur, they

did not question the validity of fixing of the said date before the

appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded

from questioning the selection process.

In the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of

Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission,

Uttarakhand and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 wherein at

Paragraph-24 it has been held that if the candidates knowing the

requirements of the selection process and fully aware with the

process, they appeared in the interview, faced the questions from

the expert of computer application and have taken a chance and

opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now they

cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was

wrong and without jurisdiction.

However, this point was not before the writ court and as such,

it has not been answered but we have examined this fact after

gathering the factual aspect in course of argument advanced on

- 19 -

behalf of the parties and, therefore, we thought it proper to answer

the same and accordingly we have answered the same as above.

15. This Court, after deliberating upon the issue as above, has

gone across the impugned order in order to look into the issue as to

whether the representation of the number of candidates belonging to

EBC-I and BC-II is available or not. We have found from the

pleading of the Commission, as has been stated in the counter

affidavit which has been taken into consideration by the learned

Single Judge, that against 209 vacancies of EBC-I category, 1364

candidates and similarly against 172 vacancies for BC-II category,

1670 candidates have been shortlisted for main examination.

Further, it has been considered by the learned Single Judge that the

writ petitioners have got 332 and 329 marks respectively whereas

under their respective categories, the last candidate has got more

than 335 marks, therefore, according to our considered view, it is not

a case where the candidates under the EBC-I and BC-II categories

have not been selected for consideration of their candidature by

allowing them to appear in the main examination, however, fact

remains that the writ petitioners could not have been selected to

participate in the main examination since they have got lesser marks

in comparison to last selected candidate under their category.

16. It requires to refer herein that the Commission has taken the

specific stand as under paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that no

benefit of reservation has been extended in the preliminary

examination to the candidates belonging to any of the categories

- 20 -

and such statement has not been reverted by the writ petitioners

since no response to that counter affidavit has been filed.

Further, the aforesaid fact as has been stated at paragraph 15

of the counter affidavit is also corroborated from the reservation

policy of the State of Jharkhand enacted in the year 2001 that no

provision of reservation has been made in the preliminary

examination and hence there is no question of providing any benefit

of reservation to the candidates belonging to the EBC-I or BC-II

category.

The Court has also gathered from the pleading made on

behalf of the Commission that it is not a case of less representation

of the candidates belonging to EBC-I and BC-II category as would

be evident from the chart annexed as Annexure-B to the counter

affidavit.

17. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for

the Commission that the writ petitioners have questioned the result

of the preliminary examination but the entire selection process has

already been concluded and the successful candidates have already

been appointed and, therefore, on this ground also, at this stage no

interference can be shown.

18. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact in its

entirety, as discussed hereinabove, and going across the impugned

order passed by learned Single Judge, is of the considered view that

the learned Single Judge has considered the entire aspect of the

matter both on facts and law and finding no merit, has dismissed the

- 21 -

writ petition which according to us, cannot be faulted with.

19. In view thereof, the instant appeal fails and accordingly

dismissed.

20. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, also stand

dismissed.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/ A.F.R.