Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 741 (PAT)

Laljee Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2000-05-19

M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment 1. The respondent-State in the Police Department, advertised posts for appointment of police force in several districts. The advertisement was published in the newspaper being Advertisement No. 1/97. In the advertisement the vacancies in each district in the State of Bihar, have been mentioned. The requisite qualification and eligibility of the candidates have also been mentioned in the advertisement. The advertisement further provided that the candidates belonging to other state shall apply only in the Patna District. The respondents also issued prescribed forms to be filled up and submitted by the candidates. In the said form a condition has been put that the candidates will give a declaration that he/she has applied only in one district and has not applied in any other district. The candidates were also required to give a declaration that in the event it is found that the candidate has applied in more than one district, then his selection will be cancelled. 2. In the instant writ application the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the declaration and prayed that the said clause-13 of the form whereby the respondent-State put restriction in the matter of making application in more than one district, be declared as violative of the constitution and also against the public policy. 3. In the instant case, pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid, the petitioner filed up the application forms from two districts, namely, Giridth district and Chatra district as because in Chatra district there were 20 vacancies whereas in Giridih district there were 40 vacancies. The petitioner appeared in the written test as well as physical test on the scheduled dates both at Giridih and Chatra districts and he passed both the tests in both the districts. However, the result of selected candidates was published but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the list of selected candidates. The petitioner is said to have inquired about the reason and learnt that he was not selected because he had filled up the application forms and appeared in the test from two districts. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation and prayed to the authority to consider his case but nothing was done. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a representation and prayed to the authority to consider his case but nothing was done. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3, the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh-cum-Chairman, District Police Force Selection Committee, Hazaribagh wherein it was admitted that the petitioner had passed the test but he had violated the terms and conditions of declaration made by him to the effect that he will not apply in more than one district. 5. Similar stand has been taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 in which it is stated that if the candidate violates the declaration made by him in the application then his appointment will be cancelled in the case it is detected that the applicant has submitted form in more than one district. 6. I have heard Mr. B. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned JC to G.P. 1. 7. Mr. B.V.Kumar has challenged the condition contained in the advertisement as also the declaration obtained by the respondents from the candidates as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the public policy. Learned counsel further submitted that such declaration/undertaking sought by the respondents in the application form is against the public policy and unlawful agreement which is void. Learned counsel submitted that the action on the part of the respondents is violative of constitutional right as guaranteed in the Constitution. Learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Union Carbide Corporation etc. vs. Union of India and ors. ( AIR 1992 SC 248 ), Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh vs. Hari Om Sharma and ors. ( AIR 1998 SC 2909 and also a Division Bench decision in the case of Sri Chakradhari Sharan Singh and ors. vs. Union of India and ors. ( 1991 BBCJ 48 : 1991(2) PLJR 767). 8. The respondents have filed a copy of the advertisement published in the newspaper as Annexure A to the counter affidavit. Clause 19 of the said agreement reads as under : 9. The declaration which a candidate had to give, has been prescribed in the application form which reads as under : 10. 8. The respondents have filed a copy of the advertisement published in the newspaper as Annexure A to the counter affidavit. Clause 19 of the said agreement reads as under : 9. The declaration which a candidate had to give, has been prescribed in the application form which reads as under : 10. From the aforesaid declaration it is clear that the candidates were compelled to agree that he or she will not apply for appointment in the said post in more than one district and in the event it is found that he or she had applied in more than one district, then their selection will be cancelled. The restriction requiring the applicants to apply in one district and to give a declaration that he or she has applied only in one district and in the event it is found that he or she has applied in more than one district then his/her selection will be cancelled is a question which has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 11. Nothing has been said by the respondents in any of the counter affidavits as to the object of putting such restriction in making application for the said post in more than one district. Neither in the counter affidavit it is mentioned nor the counsel for the State pointed out any rule providing restriction in the matter of making application by a candidate residing in the State of Bihar to apply in more than one district. 12. In the case of Chakradhari Sharan Singh vs. Union (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has considered a similar restriction put by the Regional Bank in the matter of appointment for the post of officer, supervisors, clerk-cum- cashier, typist etc. In that case the recruitment Board issued an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the aforesaid posts in different Rural Banks in the State of Bihar. Ciause 6 of the advertisement put a restriction that eligible candidates can apply tor vacancies of any number of posts, but the choice is restricted to one regional bank only. No change in choice of RRB will be permitted under any circumstances. In view of the said clause candidates could apply for any number of posts but the choice was restricted to one bank situated in a particular place in the State of Bihar only. No change in choice of RRB will be permitted under any circumstances. In view of the said clause candidates could apply for any number of posts but the choice was restricted to one bank situated in a particular place in the State of Bihar only. In that case also in respect of 19 such rural banks situated in different districts of the State of Bihar vacancies had been advertised. In that case the stand was taken by the Bank that such restriction was put with the object that eligible local candidates from the region in which the rural bank is situated are selected. This court, after considering various decisions of the Apex Court, observed : "So far the present case is concerned, in the Rural Banks Act no scheme regarding appointments in such Rural Banks has been disclosed. According to the respondents, the restriction regarding making application against posts in one Rural Bank was introduced in the advertisement only on the basis of the handbook issued by the Govt. of India containing the guidelines for appointments. Only in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Recruitment Board the object of introducing clause 6 in the advertisement has been stated. It has already been pointed out that in view of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution it is not permissible to introduce a restriction in matters o1 public employment with reference to place of residence. Apart from that even that object is not being achieved because resident of one District can apply for any post in a Rural Bank in another District which may be at a distance of more than thousand kilometres." 13. In the case of P. Rajendran & ors. vs. State of Madras & ors. ( AIR 1968 SC 1012 ), a similar question came for consideration as to whether a rule providing for districtwise distribution of seats according to population for admission in MBBS course is violative of Art. 15(1) of the Constitution which lays down that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of place of birth and as such, it amounted to discrimination within the meaning of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The Apex Court declaring such rule unconstitutional held that the object of selection has only to be secured the best possible material for admission to colleges subject to provision for socially and educationally backward classes. The Apex Court declaring such rule unconstitutional held that the object of selection has only to be secured the best possible material for admission to colleges subject to provision for socially and educationally backward classes. If the seats are allocated districtwise, then such object would be defeated. 14. In the case of Sushri Priti Biswas vs. State of Bihar and anr. reported in 1990 PLJR 226 a Division Bench of this court was considering a similar question as to whether consideration for appointment to a public service under the State can be confined to the residents of a district or not. Declaring such conditions as ultra vires and unconstitutional their lordships observed : "The advertisement and consequent selections and appointments are so evidently unconstitutional that a mere glance to Article 16 of the Constitution of India is enough to declare them ultra vires. The advertisement says "Awedan patra kewal Purbi Champaran ke wasi hi ho sakte hein." Clause (2) of Article 16 says "No citizen shall on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under State". It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a citizen of India and evidently so were other candidates, because they could not be selected in the terms of the advertisement aforementioned, unless they were residents of the district of East Champaran. A discrimination on the ground of residence is specifically forbidden by the Constitution, yet the advertisement invited applications only from the residents of the district of East Champaran. The violation of the Constitutional mandate by the said advertisement is such that it cannot be sustained." 15. In the case of Devanand Roy and anr. vs. State of Bihar [1991 (1) PLJR 33] the petitioner had challenged the advertisement issued by the State Government for appointment of school teachers imposing a condition that the applicants must be residents of Bhojpur district or must have continuously resided in the district for the past ten years and that the candidates must have successfully completed C.P. Ed. course from a Physical Training College run by the Bihar Government. It was held that such condition per se violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because they discriminate against the residents of other districts without any rational basis. course from a Physical Training College run by the Bihar Government. It was held that such condition per se violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because they discriminate against the residents of other districts without any rational basis. It was further held that the second condition stipulating that the candidates must have successfully passed C.P.Ed. course from a college run by the Bihar Government, is as unreasonable and unsustainable as the condition regarding permanent residents in that district.